Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


5 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. You do have to wonder sometimes whether all leave of senses is being taken. In the past few days we have had: Weird hints about a forthcoming Oldham case when no-one from here was even aware that it existed, bizarre arrangements being made for local journalists and photographer to attend a preliminary hearing (when the worst it could have got for the defendant was that the particulars were not struck out and a full hearing was ordered), a county court judge twice being called an "arse" and accused of not knowing the law on a public internet forum due to his making a negative decision in the eyes of the claimant (the striking out of the entire particulars of claim), subsequent attempts to portray that decision to strike out the particulars as not negative at all but positive or neutral (if Monday was not a "defeat" I would love to know what a "win" looks like) and now more bizarre allegations apparently attacking the integrity of CAG staff and apparent attempts to frighten or intimidate site members that their identities will be discovered.All this over a court case involving a private parking ticket. Not exactly a matter of life and death. It appears that the PPC has itself elevated the issue to these "hothouse" levels by constant baiting and trolling and statements such as that it could never be defeated in court. Other PPCs in the main just get on with it (although I am no fan) but this PPC seems unable to refrain from acrimonious exchanges with those who legitimately disagree with it and appears to be trying to prove a point in some kind of "campaign". With that in mind and ignoring further provocation, which I am sure will not be long in coming, I will leave it there.
  2. I have now received the following account of what transpired yesterday directly from the defendant. These are the defendant's own words and I have not altered them in any way. I will leave readers to make up their own minds about the status of the case (but it is fairly clear to me at least that this is far from a neutral outcome, as CPS representatives would now have us believe):"There were 4 people from CPS, one of which could have been Perky himself. There were 3 gentleman and a lady, none of which could even look me in the eye. Within only a couple of minutes it was obvious that the judge was not some much on my side as against them as he instantly stuct out the claim. The person speaking for them was very obnoxious and constantly ridiculed the judge and his decision and the judge at one point stated that he was cheeky for speaking in this manner. He constantly quoted law references but the judge dismissed them and blatantly stated that there was no case. The CPS speaker then said that he would be appealing against the judges decision and the judge firmly said that there would be no appeal and that CPS should put it in writing that the claim is now closed. Throughout the hearing I was only asked if I was the registered keeper of the car. The CPS speaker stated that as the registered keeper, I am liable for the charge and when the judge asked if I was the driver to CPS they said yes, the judge then asked how they knew and there pathetic response was "we just do"."
  3. I am merely relating the facts as relayed to me by the defendant. He contacted me today because he noted I posted in a thread which had mentioned his case. It was CPS trolls as we now know them who mentioned the case first on pepipoo and then over here. I did wonder when scottish mark kept insisting the case was happening and now we know. I genuinely believed it was a try on by them. But rather than carry on a pointless debate with clearly very disappointed CPS reps I will leave it there.
  4. Oh dear, IMHO calling a judge an "arse" is not very clever. And for the record I am not "legaladvisor" but if it pleases you to think that I am it doesn't really bother me.
  5. I don't know what you are on about g&m. You will need to ask perky why he had a journalist lined up - presumably to record his victory. I am only recounting events as they have been related to me. It is ridiculous to suggest I have some vendetta against CPS or perky (but for some reason you seem to have one against me) for relaying information provided to me and I think it is of interest to many on here that the result of this case is publicised. CPS trolls, who I now see have come out and admitted their affiliation, have been posting about the case for days and how the defendant would get "caned". IMHO it is correct and proper that people know what has happened today and can then make up their own minds.
  6. g&m we will agree to disagree. You can attack me all you like but many will celebrate this news on here. Perky cares about the case so little that I am told he had a journalist and photographer lined up to record his victory. Or his defeat as it turned out. It is the first proper defence because perky has been so kind in the past to show example defences, and lamentable they are. I have just received from the defendant a copy of the defence in the case today and it is a very different order
  7. Here are some more details of Perky's court defeat today. The defendant was Stephen Thomas (username stethomas on this site). The case no is 8QT03984. The preliminary hearing was held at 2.15 today at Oldham CC before Judge Stockton. CPS have been refused leave to appeal.
  8. You are entitled to your opinion g&m. Clearly it matters to Perky as he has had a claim struck out at the preliminary stage when faced with the first proper defence. It matters so much I am told there were no less than 4 (yes that's right 4) representatives from CPS there today. It also matters because the case was struck out at the earliest preliminary stage due to a RK/driver argument.
  9. It is far from a [problem], there was an Oldham cade today and it has resulted in a humiliating defeat for Perky and CPS. I have been contacted by the defendant (the same one as was referred to in a February thread) to spread the news. Will post full details in a little while. The case has very major implications as the claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing - it did not even get to a full hearing.
  10. I am receiving news that at preliminary hearing at Oldham CC today, a case taken by CPS was struck out by the Judge. It did not even get to a full hearing. Full details will follow.
  11. With the greatest of respect g&m, this is a load of old codswallop and it doesn't do your reputation any favours. You can only defraud someone out of something to which they are entitled if they are entitled to it. What constitutes that entitlement? - proving that a contract exists with the driver whereby the driver has agreed to pay a charge. It is not like a case of fraud where you are depriving someone of something they already have, but rather something they might possibly have in the extremely unlikely event that they can first prove a contract exists. Proving that contract is a civil matter for the courts. The police would have absolutely no interest in such a matter.
  12. "Entitled to assume that you were driving the vehicle on the day in question". The nerve of them. They are of course entitled to assume no such thing. If they want to take it further they would have to provide clear evidence that the RK was driving, which of course they will not be able to do. It would be tempting to reply with "I am entitled to assume that you are talking out of your rear end".
  13. You're right - there is clear concern that CPS car parks are being outed. But then again someone who (1) kept ratttling on for ages about an Oldham case which was proved not to exist (but which if it did would no doubt involve CPS), (2) tries to resurrect a long dead thread about CPS, (3) defends the personal vendetta being conducted against a Pepipoo member on the CPS website, would have a problem with it, wouldn't they?
  • Create New...