8. Concluding comments

    1. The reprehensible nature of what s being done in abuses

      • What is all the fuss about for just one PCN?

      • Firstly look at some figures obtained from Dr. Knottenbelt's site. The number of PCN's issued in 2003/2004 by a) Islington 286,174, b) Camden 467,683, c) Westminster 1,051,798 and all London Boroughs 5.936,486 at a minimum of £50. It is very easy to extrapolate some (a qualified use of the Aristotelian term of a minor premise in syllogistic reasoning, that is justified by myself and Dr. Knottenbelt at least, making two) figure, that shows not only nearly six million Londoners are penalised and upset very seriously, but a good percentage of those are members of the growing class of motorists with substantial grounds for anger and resentment, and that is where there will be found a correlation between intolerance from the authorities; whom we foolishly elect on large issues of unfulfilled promises, and the rising tide of crime. Their mediocrity and in some cases, greed, allows far too much licence for abuse, so their negligence, mostly willful, permits these practices to grow.

      • Sceptical? Write a letter to your local MP, or ask for a 'surgery' appointment and just see how long you wait, and the merit of the exchanges that ensue when you have the meeting. Write a letter to a minister or the Prime Minister, and see how long, you wait. A relative of mine did, to Mrs. Thatcher, it took six months for a reply. Make a complaint to the PCA, which I have done many years ago, have their member reply proving a contradiction between their interviewee and his own sworn section nine statement for the court. Show that contradiction up, and then receive a reply from the Head of the PCA, placing the complaint outside of a time frame in which it may be pursued, and then examine the composition of the PCA, and the success rate of complaints made, where, some 8-10 years ago, there was a success rate of 3% and draw your own conclusions. I will be placing these issues on the web in due course. It's not all bad, I had occasion to criticise an employee of the DCA (Department of Constitutional affairs) last year and nearly lost my balance when I actually received an unreserved apology, prompting me to write back and state how refreshing it was that someone had the moral courage to apologise, understanding that it did not carry with it a financial liability. On the other hand, in some 7 or so hearings in court this past ten years, I have been staggered to observe that; on reading a mendacious deposition, a number of different judges hardly batted an eyelid when pointed our that the assertionsw were false, not merely empirically, but logically, consisting of contradictory sworn testimony. Having shown three defendants as knowingly deposing perjured statements contrary to swearing them to be true, it was the easiest thing to simply show two assertions to be contradictory, as to bring the defendant to the deepest blush I have witnessed, despite the judges tolerance of this kind of conduct.

      • My last case against Amtrak Express Parcels, partially on the web at logiclaw.co.uk left me speechless during the final hearing; unfortunately reduced to merely three hours, from the initial comments from the Judge concerning its documentation requiring a hearing of some five days. The solicitor / company secretary, had prepared a defence so full of mendacity and perjury that had I had the full time, she should have been served with committal proceedings during the final hearing. Having defeated their argument on the privity rule at the second hearing, this party, who I can only describe as the nicest person, being like a junior just out of law school or university, was never probed on her perjury, for lack of time and, I quote her, the small track claims court does not require the higher standards of evidence and proof found in more serious cases. So it would be fair to say that she relied on getting away with perjury because her testimony would be taken at face value, despite the fact that my proof did not require empirical evidence at all, it was merely apriori proof that was incontrovertible due to the laws of logic.

      • We; “divided and ruled” lack the strength of convictions, to make our single protests count for the notion of 'DOUBT' that is necessary for the authorities to re-examine constantly their standards, and their, plus many institutions' methodology of complaints procedures are set out in such a manner of time and expenditure, as to deter all but a spirited few, from pursuing their protests in their own way. Remember, their complaints procedure is their policy, you can and do have the freedom to formulate your own.

      • Now you have the information from this site, showing without a shadow of doubt that there is a percentage of these figures where the authorities pursue their revenue unlawfully, unknown to the average motorist, and more importantly they are so inured to the practice they are unable to distinguish between the reprehensible nature of street mugging, and their own pseudo clerical mugging which is a form of white collar crime. This has over a period of time, made the UNACCEPTABLE into a custom whose boundaries are so frequently breached (and that includes the substantial number of PCNs issued for lateness of a few seconds or that undetermined period of grace of several minutes up to five minutes where a vehicle is clearly causing no congestion whatsoever), as to make the formerly unacceptable now appear perfectly reasonable, so to say. I would not be happy with any specious argument in defence that the system is not perfect, since this conduct was entirely premeditated, and due to the publicity that is growing, must be very widely spread indeed.

      • In a court of law, the terms 'reasonable behaviour' are a pure function of the boundaries set by mores and customs, by which the average person determines the difference between acceptable and unacceptable demeanour.. The boundaries and limits of reasonable behaviour, change through time, so that what was unreasonable a century ago, (eg; for a hungry child to steal an apple, or an adult to not wear black for a year after a close relative's death) would not even raise eyebrows; where breached, in today's society.

      • In some respects, (in my own view in many) these boundaries have moved so far in certain areas, that I say the world in many respects is a worse place than it was during the height of the last renaissance period where the flowering of music, art and literature had its most profound impact on our lives. It's just my view, with little doubt of being in a minority, recalling when at University on my first degree, years ago, being the only person who understood a question on the nature of the ontological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God. When the class as a body, represented the argument that the question had to be flawed, were told by our tutor that it certainly was not as there was one person who had understood it.

      • Since that day, some 35 years ago, I have reached conclusions based on references that derived from sound academic and authoritative sources, (as opposed to those derived from commercial or political ones with an agenda) and my own logic that was taken at 'O' and 'A' level some forty years ago., Regrettably I have seen in court such fallacious, and want of usage in elementary logic it makes me; as I think a reasonable person unashamedly revealing my slightly upper working class heritage, turn ten times round, like 'Alf Garnet' displaying two fingers of contempt , in complete and utter dismay. I humbly regret allowing myself the freedom and licence to depose such strong views, but I rely on the right under article 10*** of the EU convention of Human rights,

    2. Revenue driven PCNS are disproportionate and egregious.

    3. Public resentment to wardens is reflection of inflexible & unreasonable conduct..

    4. The authority's responsibilities. Function of the inflexible rule adherence


ARTICLE 10 - Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.