INSIGHT! The entire procedure,misconduct from a PCN to a County Court, 'CAUGHT'

[Medusa]

I sent you a pm on this.

[Conniff]

Thanks Medusa, I have that and will dig some deeper.

[green_and_mean]

I was looking back through old threads and came across this and felt it needed updating since his press quotes stating that '10,000 PCNs were illegal' was never followed up by an 'I'm sorry I was wrong' retraction. Neil Herron took Camden to the adjudicators last Nov (2008) and his argument that the TMA 2004 invalidated TMOs before that date was thrown out by PATAS.

 

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Organic%20Planet%20v%20L%20B%20Camden%20(2080637945).doc

[Medusa]

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.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Medusa

[Medusa]

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!"

[johno1066]

Dear oh Dear G&M, it must have been tearing you up inside and for all this time. Oh well, I guess you reap what you sow. I wonder exactly that it is you think you have achieved (apart from you wetting your knickers that is)?. It's also odd, that no Council to date, has defended a similiar challenge concerning a PCN issued directly by a CEO as opposed to via CCTV, I guess Sauvains' legal opinion was lost on you.

Edited March 18, 2009 by johno1066

[Medusa]

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