|
The case arguments
below, the context of statutes CPR and case
law that governs this and similar cases. It is printed within the
principles of the EU HR Protocol 5 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.
“, and our standard disclaimer
Short
index of main items.
The one
page that was put before the TPT, that had to bring the
council (7 person team) to admit the bays were NOT prescribed.
This admission means they were, remain, and continue to act
unlawfully with knowledge and intent.
------------------------------------------
On Friday 27th June
2008.
This appeal, was won at the tribunal hearing.
After a series of irrelevant exchanges, one simple
question was asked of the council TEAM OF SEVEN. Their
reply was to admit
the parking bays in question WERE NOT
prescribed. ....
(hence illegal, and hence fraudulently, AND they harass you
with bailiff action to get it. TWO statutes breached wholesale,
shirking their duties, and smirking while doing so. They have
been knowingly covering up for some 6 years, and
collecting unlawful enrichment.) YOU elect them, and
where do you think they belong, a council building or another
type of institution?
The case actually took about 5 minutes, surrounded by all the
fluff and spin and distractions these tend to have. All the
material is coming soon. The adjudicator for reasons YET TO BE
seen THROUGH the masks and cloaks of disguises, deferred the
ruling, to enable some fooling??. That will be
interesting to see HOW they go about a 'damage limitation'
exercise that will show without a shadow of doubt, the nature of
collusion that takes place in this ARENA of 'JUSTICE'
delivered from??? YES
you have it, the first words in all their names are “We are
independent”, they mean independent, from true JUSTICE, and
adjudicators are independent from the tribunal, BUT paid by the
'joint committee of councils' and thus adjudicate for those who
pay them, not for you. Of course some appeals have to get
through, after all they need to show SOME massaged statistics to
justify the conduct.
Neil Herron was there while the APPELLANT asked
just ONE simple prepared question.
See how for months, the council have been arguing
the most awful and common fallacy
of irrelevant theses, or
'Ignorant refutation'.
JUST like think tank rhetoric, and neuro linguistic spin.
------------------------------------------
Here is the council's
synopsis.
Summary of Appellant's
Submissions
The Appellant has stated that
the bays are unlawful. ( legality is RELEVANT to
arguments )
Enforcement Authority's
Submissions
The Council has considered
the points raised by the Appellant in his representations and
subsequent correspondence. It is our view that the minor
imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the
detriment of any motorist. It is clear that the restrictions
are, and clearly remain, parking bays. The Council therefore
remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally and
correctly, and that the Penalty Charges are due. ( views
on clarity of markings are IRRELEVANT to
arguments. )
Section
3.above is an informal fallacy with various names,
'Ignorant
thesis', 'Ignorant refutation', 'Ignoratio elenchi' Red Herring,
Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase
These
informal fallacies, focus on an irrelevant topic presented in
order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea
is to “win” an argument by leading attention away
from the argument and to another topic. This sort of
“reasoning” has the following form:
1. Topic A is
under discussion.
2. Topic B is
introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when
topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is
abandoned.
Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002 (TRSGD 2002)
This sort of
“reasoning” is fallacious because
merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an
argument against a claim. The
internal logic of the diverted reasoning MAY
be
sound. One obvious conclusion that follows in a simple 'reductio
ad absurdum' test, showing its absurdity; while setting aside a
key distraction word 'issued'
meaning
in context, simply printing anything
in
a back office, is this: IF
PCNS
are issued (and
served to
create a contract and allegation) legally and correctly, from the
keywords 'considered', 'satisfied', 'clear', and 'remain' then
WHAT ON EARTH does one need statute for? Throw the TRSGD
2002 Act into the shredder, and
all other statutes and laws, because we can reach conclusions
from placing the word 'THEREFORE' at the and of a sequence and
before a conclusion; WORD order being all that's needed, based
simply on the rising of the sun, being clear the next morning.
Utterly ridiculous isn't it? That's fraud management backed with
harassment, for you. When it comes to defending the fraud, use
words, and irrelevant concepts, ideas and thoughts to stir the
deadly cocktail, and serve the detriments to people under the
maxim 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'. When it's the
surgeon's turn to deal with 'the breath of a fee'd lawyer' he
should say 'Ignorance of medicine is no excuse', and proceed to
remove the lawyer's brains.
Initial
comments in abstract form with case law on relevance:
2.a is a generalised synopsis,
that deliberately blocks the specifics on legality, the council
failed to address, and clearly shows avoidance. This is
impermissible, and shall have to be addressed first, BEFORE
moving on to any irrelevant thesis and other fallacies that
remain, at the end of the topic. IF the adjudicator is flexible
on this and strict on hearing their argument before they rebut
cogently the Appellant's, then they breach the spirit of CPR
16.5 and the adjudicator shall be scrutinised for 'not
furthering the overriding objective' in the spirit of CPR
1.1-1.4.
3.a is in its entirety, an
irrelevant thesis, essentially argued on the clarity of
the bays, wilfully ignoring their legality,
and
extenuating
major design faults into
minor
imperfections,
this argument is a false representation and misleading within
the meaning of the Fraud act 2006, 1-4. The
appellant shall not leave the hearing and permit a waste of time
in traversing the clarity of the bays, since IF the bays are
illegal, it follows that the irrelevance of clarity is a total
waste of time, at best to reach a conclusion that from
clearly painted lines some form of legality follows where it
does NOT. That is why the legality must be determined first.
Notwithstanding this, and just for the nonce, the council's
fallacious argument forms of which there are at least 3-4 will
be disambiguated, showing very confused and muddled reasoning,
that in the Appellant's view is quite wilful, since he cannot
believe the arguments have been constructed with wilful
ignorance; that is a contradiction in terms.
3.a also contains a blurred
fallacy of 'begging the question', as well as both an anti
grammatical and anti-logical construction that show signs of
anacoluthia, (broken thoughts reflected in broken or inaccurate
grammatical forms) that has to be wilful while perhaps
unconscious. This is entirely deceptive, and has been seen for
what it is with utter precision.
The
fallacies of “irrelevant
thesis”, “ignorant refutation”, “ignoratio
elenchi” are different names of the same form, and,
'begging the question', circular reasoning, or “petitio
principii', are another type in the third sentence of 3.a. that
also has further ambiguity by an anti-grammatical construction
that reveals an anti-logical construction, that is minor, and
both inconsequential since the avoidance of the dispute issue is
unequivocally obvious. To the question “Where did you
address the issues of legality put up by the Appellant?”,
there is no
controverting response, and
only a quick passing comment in the generalised first line 1. a.
To repeat, the
structure and efficacy of 'irrelevant themes' and 'begging
questions' has its efficacy in avoiding at all costs a proper
rebuttal of the Appellant's argument on legality. If the
adjudicator permits the council to not argue against the
legality he will show complicity in breaching flexible CPR
1.1-1.4, and permit a waste of valuable judicial time on a theme
that PRESUMES the bays are legal WITHOUT making a proper
determination of that as a FACT. Equally an argument that this
has to be determined by a higher court, is viewed as a fallacy
of 'ad baculum' an 'argument to force', in stepping up costs,
where the facts are as easily determined by an ordinary man as a
High Court Justice, There are no mysteries to be examined here
whatsoever. Where bays require TWO lines instead of ONE, the
determination doesn't even require a tape measure, merely a
glimpse of the photographs.
To end here and
commence the next, one is entitled to know why the hearing is on
the council's premises, and who is therefor paying for it, does
it come from the joint committee of councils or TPT. One would
expect an 'impartial', 'independent' hearing to be held on
neutral grounds. This shall be an additional focus, for
subsequent public availability within the meaning of the EU HR
Pr5 Ar6 of course.
Equally noted
as adverse comment to the council is their willful holding back
the details of their own review of signs and lines, and this
should have been ordered under the spirit of CPR 31.6 (b),(i).
Its absence seriously prejudices this case. Although the bays
are so obviously non complaint, the Appellant is content to
dispose of their need if the adjudicator disposes of the
legality issue as determined unlawful, non complaint and
unenforceable.
Finally
the tribunal has a duty
to include relevant and exclude irrelevant material.
If
this is reversed it will show design and purpose quite
unequivocally.
Excluding the relevance
of illegality
and
including
the irrelevance of clarity
will
be unambiguously a disastrous decision revealing bias, elective
sampling, and hasty generalization. It is the observance of this
duty that is the matter of initial focus since the last visit
showed these codes breached with a decision on 'view, extent and
clarity' that was clearly synthesised.
To
emphasise the council may not be expected to maintain lines and
signs in “perfect condition” at all times is also an
irrelevance, the signs MUST be COMPLIANT, and while minor
imperfections may be tolerated, design faults that make it
illegal are
not.
If
substantial compliance is an argument offered, then that goes
two ways, namely that if the Appellant has paid for 60 minutes
and parked 65-68 minutes, he also parked in substantial
compliance. Argue on substantial compliance and give the
flexibility to motorists also, it's your decision, if
substantial is the order, that goes both ways, and the decision
maker will have to admit it, or show strictness for the motorist
and flexibility for the council, namely bias, prejudice and
partiality.
These
facts are well
known
to
Councils and adjudicators alike, and it is typical of tribunals
nowadays for an adjudicator to 'slalom' through a critical path
of CPR, and where aversion, floodgate potential, and revenue
are prominent, there is a very clear overriding
of
the 'overriding objective of fairness' in CPR 1-1.4, and where
appetite for a 'win' there is a clear furtherance of
flexibility for the objective that looks like fairness for the
powerful body whose conduct breaches other statutes wholesale
in the objective of revenue, ahead of justice and fairness.
This is the face and form of 'dark' conduct, design and purpose
that does not escape notice whatsoever. Instinct in the public
shows awareness and that is reflected in the voting patterns
that confirm it.
All the
tribunal is requested, is to order the council to SHOW the
hearing members exactly where the bay markings; where the
Appellant parked; are prescribed as explained below. VERY
SIMPLE. If the council cannot do it, then they have acted
beyond their powers, illegally. Not difficult to understand or
DO. Perhaps the council would be kind enough to oblige.
What
the government says about defective signing:
“The
use on Public highways of non-prescribed
signs
which
have not
been authorised
by,
or on behalf of, the
Secretary of State, is
illegal.
Authorities
who so use
unauthorised signs act
beyond their powers”.
Duty
to exclude all irrelevant material.
R
v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd
(1999)
Justice
Lightman "The Court may interfere if the Director has
taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to
take into account a relevant consideration."
R
(on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary
of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001)
Lord
Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary
of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to
his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters
relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his
decision aside".
Duty
to consider all relevant material. (there are more.)
R
v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson
(1994)
"Not
satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was
properly considered before the decision was taken"
R
v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte
Balchin (1998)
"The
relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been
omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused
the a decision maker to reach a different
conclusion"
Recommendation
Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11
March(1980)
In
describing this basic principle "an administrative
authority when exercising a discretionary power ..........
observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any
of the factors relevant to the particular case".
Since
the council's arguments are deemed totally irrelevant, the issue
has nothing to do with 'views
on clarity',
their disambiguation is at the end, since it is considered a
waste of judicial time. Nevertheless the
Appellant HAS addressed it, UNLIKE the council, in
their NOT addressing the Appellant's. This shows principles and
respect towards procedure.
|
|
More detailed
examination, of the council's irrelevant argument on clarity,
language and logic, that governs a hearing or SHOULD, unless you
are familiar with logic, grammar, philology and law. A discipline
in Law will be insufficient for the next part and the writer does
not intend this to be didactic beyond the requirements of a
cursory explanation. Of the council's arguments AFTER their
address to the claimant's issues on legality. If the adjudicator
wishes to place this part first, then the Appellant states he
shall remain silent and not contribute until his arguments are
addressed.
Note the use of focus and
palliation in the management of “suppressio veri &
suggestion falsi” The art of suppressing craftily what is
adverse to one's case, and suggesting what is often false, to
ones advantage financially, or irrelevant to reaching a valid
conclusion. This section deals with Irrelevant Thesis, but in
this argument there are overlays of several themes.
A worthwhile note here, are
the thoughts contained in MfM Shakespeare, Angelo says....
Your
sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant Or seem so,
craftily; and that's not good.
Clearly the thoughts are to
disguise crafting sophistical and casuistic semantics, as close
as to appear ignorant, that is the cloak to cunning in purpose
and design.
Note 1.a below, is a
SUMMARY, and 2. below
is far more detailed. (suppress the relevant
and argue the irrelevance.)
Note 2. below
has the guise of a syllogism, with several
premisses and a conclusion.
In principle what may look
like a valid conclusion, can be managed by crafting from
premisses that are based on speculation or opinion rather than
fact. This is the case in this persuasive, but irrelevant
argument form that ignores the Appellant's argument ENTIRELY,
and was supported last time by this tribunal. In each
particular premise there is NOTHING that refers to FACT, or
actual LAW. That is how this example is managed. The method of
dismantling this fallacy and types like it, is to dispose of
the validity of the premises on which the conclusion is
derived. Premisses must be grounded in fact, not 'VIEWS',
speculation or opinion. correspondence with FACT is
mandatory. Eg; there's no point in saying 'the cat is white',
in order to derive some conclusion that follows from whiteness,
when IN FACT 'the CAT IS BLACK.' Not only is that a complete
farce, for anybody to argue, but they need to return to classes
for 6 year olds. Bear in mind that bodies who argue like this
where revenue and class action potential exists, they will
repeat their side, like a broken record simply because they
have been ordered to do so, on pain of dismissal from work. The
entire procedure is deplorable from a Judicial point of view.
Bias will be the obvious result, and if that is as obvious as
the argument above, then the appeal has to go higher to the
highest courts in the land, or exposed in the public domain,
where the adjudicator and body, who abuse power and discretion
are shamed in the precess. It goes without saying that
complaints should follow at the highest level.
Next the presentation will be
reprinted, with separation to make each examination more
detailed. First the passages will be separated and highlighted
for their logical parts.
Summary of Appellant's
Submissions
The Appellant has stated that
the bays are unlawful. NOT
yet controverted,
deemed as admitted
under CPR 16.5.
Enforcement Authority's
Submissions
The Council has considered
the points raised by the Appellant in his
representations and subsequent
correspondence. This part is padding and
a misleading representation, since they have not addressed
any points that indicates and suggests they are admitted as
above.
It is our view
that the minor imperfections to
which the Appellant refers are not
to the detriment of any motorist.
It is clear
that the restrictions are, and
clearly remain, parking bays.
The
Council therefore remains
satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally
and correctly, and that the
Penalty Charges are due.
Determination of
legality of the bays is extremely simple and achieved by
examining their features that are obvious, and are major design
faults that in no way may be palliated as minor imperfections to
avoid the issue. Two transverse lines instead of ONE is hardly
minor. The appellant is NOT addressing perfection, nor sufficient
compliance which is the obverse of 'substantial',
argued about point 8.
Failed attempt, to summarise
the appellant's arguments in a general word (unlawful),
without showing HOW the appellant reached his conclusion, with
validity! AND without addressing or controverting the legality
issue is all that should be necessary for a court of integrity
to judge impartially, under CPR 16.5
Here is how his, the
Appellant's was argued.
There is a statutory
regulation called The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002, In
it, there are specific details and measurements of how parking
bays are drawn up, with details as to when transverse lines
are either double or single, and other features. Eg a taxi
bay is number
1028.2, disabled is
1028.3 and doctor is
1028.4 an example of a 1032 bay is here.
CLEARLY the specifics for each bay are
worked out in detail. An example of a ruling at Npas upholding
an appeal is here.
The appellant did not argue
with minor imperfections, but major non compliances, the bays
are simply non compliant substantially by design fault. Ie;
where a bay type requires TWO transverse lines instead of ONE,
that is hardly a minor imperfection. It's the difference
between one whole line and two lines, nothing to do with
normal wear and tear and minor details at all.
Where the bay lines failed
to conform to the statutory requirements set down in law, they
were unenforceable, SIMPLY that.
Do the design specifications
match the facts of the bays in question and shown in the
photographs? Either they do or not, and consequentially they
are enforceable or not. Does the statement black cat
match the white cat we are
looking at, it's as excruciatingly simple as that. Do two
lines match one line? Usually a six year old would have no
difficulty in making a judgement.
Each council part shall now be
examined in relation to either its TRUTH, ie correspondence with
FACT, or else the grounds on which it relies. Before that
however, we shall look at the disguised syllogism if that is
what it is, at least it suggests it is.
Here is what a valid
deductive syllogism looks like;
All
men are mortal,
Socrates is a man,
Therefore Socrates is
mortal.
The truth of the conclusion
– therefore,
is indisputable, because the first premiss is a universal
(all) and the second premiss
carries a properly distributed middle term (men),
and the conclusion can be none other than Socrates is mortal
because Socrates is a man, and
all men are....mortal
Look at the form of this
alleged syllogism, and note the
ONLY thing that suggests it is a syllogism, is the word
THEREFORE. In every other respect
it fails the test, it is neither deductive, inductive eductive,
or abductive, for various and separate reasons. It's
seductive, and perhaps abductive; in
the sense of stealing reason,
and atrocious. I shall
leave digression as to the three other forms of reasoning
ending with 'ive'
as this is not the proper section.
Council
statement “It is our view
that the
minor
imperfections to
which the
Appellant refers are
not
to the detriment of
any motorist.”
No
hiding the fact this statement is a VIEW
(an opinion),
and has nothing to
do with statute or bay correspondence between
description and fact. The Appellant did not argue on
minor imperfections, irrelevant thesis again.
There
is no reason at all to consider a view,
the only thing to consider, and the law requires it, is the
statute, and the relevant bay markings. That should be clear.
The minor imperfections alluded
to, selectively and with bias, overlook
the MAJOR ones, focus on trivia, and ignore the real
issue does not address the real issue? And finally “not
to the detriment of any motorist.” may be true IF
there were ONLY minor imperfections but what happens when
there are MAJOR non compliances and irregularities? THEN that
is to the detriment of a motorist, and the latter IS the case
in fact.
“It is clear
that the restrictions
are, and
clearly remain, parking
bays.”
This is
exceedingly muddled in ideas and thoughts that are expressed
in the particular inefficiencies of language and grammar, as
opposed to the logic in the ideas expressed. The sentence is
very close to anacoluthia, in the thoughts being muddled and
lost in the padding where the writer gives prominence to an
attributive or qualifying word at the beginning, and tries to
separate it, losing apposition and concord in the process.
This is close to the cognitive dissonance pointed to in the
CLCC to the lawyers and judge, to which all were silent, and
tacitly in admission under CPR 16.5.
“are,
and clearly remain” should read 'were,
and clearly remain', are
and remain
are both present continues
tenses, it's like saying are and are, or are and still are.
Totally unnecessary to separate the terms restrictions
from the 'head word' bay,
to which it sits in apposition erroneously. HOW? Quite simple,
restrictions and parking are the attribute, predicate and
qualifying adjunct words to bays. The sentence should read for
a clear thought, “the parking bays have restrictions”
instead of the restrictions
are, parking
bays, and
then you will see the free adjective is floating about to be
used as a noun. It is like saying “the
earth is round”,
and moving the adjunct word to the front, for prominence and
saying “the
round is earth” now
you can see the attribute is used incorrectly where indeed it
should have read THESE restrictions are parking bays, but
still remains confused. As there is no concord between the
adjectival noun and the substance word 'bay'. It ought to have
read, “the parking bays have restrictions;” that
are disclose when reading the relevant signs.
The
struggle to make the attribute restrictions
into
the noun, bays
is
clear by saying 'restrictions are parking
bays',
which is what is being stated clearly, but it's the wrong way
around. Their previous argument which will come here shortly
shows the progression of re-formulation in the attempt to
muddle the disguise to 'bays are clear', when bays are clearLY
ILLEGAL.
Do
remember Henry Sweet, para 501. “The
word order of a normal declarative sentences in English is
that the subject precedes the predicate.”
The
correct way, was to say “It
is clear
that the parking
bays, have
restrictions that are printed
on the adjacent signboards.”
I
hope you can see the mangled language that is delivered
with authority's countenance wrapped
in imposing settings bounded by people called 'officers' whose
'once time' education, now reduced to such a level that after
years of being told to recite a piece and nothing else, is an
almost empty vessel.(fallacy of appeal to fallacious
authority.)
This achievement took several months of trial and error in
getting the SOUND just right. No intelligence behind it, just
appetite and the goal to it. The 'Thorndike cat', in working
out how to get at the food outside the cage THAT'S ALL!
To
show this further, when entering a street, the first thing one
sees is the 'head word',
bays,
and other signs. ONE CATEGORICALLY DOES not see the
restrictions since that is an abstract noun being used
adjectivally, as a diversion, and is anti-logical, it can only
be discovered on READING the signs for the relevant bays.
Which restriction applies requires
context, and inference from
other signs and further understanding what the signs mean in
terms of the restrictions for any particular sign. That
sentence is anti-grammatical, anti-logical, 'begs the
question', on restrictions and sets
aside the question on bays being legal, and
showing broken thoughts. It is a hopeless muddle thought-wise,
and for logic where attributes belong to substances and
substance do not belong to
attributes. Round doesn't
belong
to Earth, it's an adjunct word that qualifies earth
with one of many attributes only. Restrictions likewise don't
belong to bays, they vary for each bay type, and certainly for
illegal bays DON'T have any restrictions at all. The attempt
to redefine a restriction as a bay fails the test on all the
above grounds.
IF
specific restrictions WERE parking bays, even then the
issue is irrelevant. As you have just been referred to
doctor's bays, taxi bays, disabled bays, and it follows also
that there are legal bays and illegal bays. While all
of these types may well be CLEAR, clearness has little
or nothing to do with the types or the legality. In
this particular case there is only one thing that's perfectly
clear. The ones under review are CLEARLY
ILLEGAL on the grounds that they do NOT conform
to the statute and regulations laid down for their being legal
and enforceable,
“The
Council therefore
remains satisfied that the
PCNs were issued
legally
and correctly,”
We have
just been over the therefore
issue, and will return shortly, but “remains satisfied
is OBVERSE to the Appellant's argument and he is satisfied
they are illegal BASED on the important and relevant
details of statute, and fact in reality, NOT his views or his
satisfactions. HOW does one make a determination?
LOOK
at the statute and compare it with the FACTS, VERY VERY
SIMPLE. The council don't want to go near those two issues,
statute and facts, WHY NOT, afraid of the truth?
Issued,
this term does not mean served.... as the council knows full
well, one can legally and correctly issue
any kind of document in a back office, but when it is served
it becomes contractual and an allegation.
Finally
that this has to be spelled out in such awful detail like
tutoring a ten year old is a sign that the council are
instructed to repeat their arguments like a broken record, and
avoid at all costs, the issue of a ruling that will cost them
many thousands of pounds. They lack the integrity to face a
truth simply because of the overriding objective of revenue
gain, even if unlawful, What stops them correcting their
lines? Cant' be bothered to re-paint them, rather than prefer
to formulate ridiculous and flawed spin arguments that
compromise the integrity of adjudicators all for the fun of
making false representations and getting away with it because
power sides with power against the weak, and truth gets thrown
out. Might is NOT right, where argument is not treason. Sound
reason like this from the appellant is the overriding thing in
a court of law, or else call it is a court o'flaw.
What follows briefly, from all the above is the council have
formulated an argument based on a VIEW, that a parking
bay is CLEAR and is therefore legal. It's a 'non sequitur',
'it DOES NOT FOLLOW'
-------------------------------
Example of a standard
way of rebutting the arguments, simply reverse the arguments
converting the key terms, so their awful mental gibberish is
mirrored back to them. They should understand it, they wrote it.
THEN if you have time and inclination, translate it into proper
English that a TRUTHFUL person would declare IF they had any
integrity......
An early original
argument that shows clearly the avoidance of he issue 'legality'
an focus on irrelevant issue on EXTENT, what is that?
Original
“We
are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the
extent of the parking bay clear”.
Nobody
asked the question for this answer, the questions was “are
the markings fully
prescribed and
compliant, and therefore legal or NOT?” Amusing how they
treat such questions like a 12 year old in exam, who can't answer
the question, and writes down the entire raining contents of his
brain on OTHER issues.
The
reply. (failed the exam.)
You
made two errors, inflection
of clear
and
overlooking the truth in omitting
wilfully a qualifying word,
here is the correct way to answer this. Mirrored and translated.
“We
are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the
extent of the parking bay clearly
illegal”.
-------------------------------
Original.
Summary of Appellant's
Submissions
The Appellant has stated that
the bays are unlawful.
Enforcement Authority's
Submissions
The Council has considered
the points raised by the Appellant in his
representations
and subsequent correspondence.
It is our view
that the minor imperfections to
which the Appellant refers are not
to the detriment of any motorist.
It is clear
that the restrictions are, and
clearly remain, parking bays.
The Council therefore
remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally
and correctly, and that the
Penalty Charges are due.
Mirror. (suggested.)
Summary of Appellant's
Submissions
The Appellant has considered
the points raised by the Council in their
representations
and subsequent correspondence.
It is our view
that the major design faults and non
compliances to which the council
refers are to the detriment
of all motorists.
It is clear
that the restrictions are, and
clearly remain, illegal parking bays.
The Appellant therefore
remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued illegally
and incorrectly, and that the
Penalty Charges are not due.
Enforcement Authority's
Submissions
The Council has stated that
the extent of the bays is 'clear'.
Mirrored
and translated.
-------------------------------
A later
advertising persuasion piece.
A
number of signs have been changed in the Civil Enforcement Area
to ensure consistency. The old signing was correct but in some
areas we have been using the new TSRGD version. The Council is
changing the signs to stop confusion to the public.
Opposition
party piece. (suggested.)
A
number of signs have been changed, to
comply with the LAW, in the
Civil Enforcement Area to ensure compliance.
The old signing was incorrect but in some areas we have been
using the new TSRGD version, we
are not telling you about, because it's the old version being
brought up to date. The Council
is changing the signs to stop confusion to the public. Because
of our failings, the
public are confused, We prefer to not disclose this, and deliver
the presumptions that it's THEIR fault and they are punished for
it, unless they can rebut it, but we can hinder that.
Mirrored
and translated.
-------------------------------
ONE very simple, but long question
that can be answer at the outset with a yes / no, unless the
council and friends wish to try and find a way around truth, and
manufacture a falsity that makes a win, untruthfully, and
unlawfully; awfully and visibly.
A
first point needs to be made, the council has been repeatedly
asked to supply the report details of the review promised since
March 2008. This is a clear breach of the FOI act 2000, multiply.
Equally under the spirit CPR 31.6 (b),(i) -- Standard
disclosure requires a party to disclose only
–(b)
the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case;
(ii)
adversely affect another party’s case. Such avoidance
discloses a clear breach of duty to justice, truth and fairness,
and the council visible non co-operation shows 'culpa lata' gross
negligence the equivalent of deception. It is requested that the
adjudicator is asked to address this fully, ensuring the omission
is balanced in the Appellant's favour.
This
is MY appeal of Thu, 27 June 2008 ref: PCN
by Wayne Pendle
Back to index
THIS,
MY appeal has ONLY ISSUE for this hearing, that of the
relevant bay, accurately corresponding with ANY
particular prescribed bay in
TRSGD 2002. JUST which prescribed bay number is a match please?
I understand that a
prescribed bay is
lawful, and one that is NOT is unlawful, and cannot be enforced.
I need your guidance. Please note I need to tick ONE
BOX........May I have your help in ticking a box FIRST, before
any other consideration, like extent, clear,
[
] Bay is a fully prescribed bay or
fully complaint bay, OR
[
] Bay is NOT a fully prescribed bay or
NOT a fully complaint bay.
I
am unable to tick box a, if the bay is anything other than
what it is namely a.
A
substantially compliant bay, means NOT a, and YES b. VERY
simple 2nd
law of thought from 2300
years ago. I am happy to discuss substantial compliance, wear
and tear issues, AFTER a
box has been ticked. Any other issue is irrelevant
to this; MY
appeal.
Question
again. SKIP to 3. IF 1 has been ticked. Please show or
explain to me; why I fail to find,
and you show belief that the prescribed bay is a match to
the bay in question to MY appeal. I simply wish to be
pointed to; clearly and with precision, the relevant bay
(pictured) the vehicle was parked in, which bay it matches
in the prescribed bays in TRSGD 2002. Identify it for me
please? Please and kindly, avoid fallacies of a variety of
irrelevant issues,irrelevant thesis, and certainly not 'petitio
principii'. Note, 'Deny everything admit nothing' the standard
practice of avoidance of culpability, is a sign of deception, in
hiding the truth 'culpa lata', or arguing a 'red herring' to an
issue never asked for. The example below is a fallacy of
irrelevant issue ruled by Justices in statutes 3. e, and 3. f,
below.
Please
note that, last time, “We
are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the
extent of the parking bay clear”. Answers
to ONLY the questions, concerning “extent
and
clear”
NOT
the question of being a prescribed bay, or a legal bay. The
response to the question last time was;
“We
are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the
extent of the parking bay clearly
illegal”,
or
not
prescribed bays.
If
you cannot, or refuse to admit there is no match, then under
the spirit of CPR 16.5 you are taken to admit the bay is not one
prescribed in legislation. An answer addressing a different
question is an informal fallacy of 'ignorant refutation', or
'irrelevant thesis'. This
simple question will get more detailed the more the answer is
delayed, obfuscated or diverted away from its perfect
simplicity. It will save judicial time if the answer were
properly made with truth and candour, under the
spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4.
Either
it is a 'prescribed bay' or not, either it corresponds as a
true or false match, there is no middle alternative. IS IT the
SAME or NOT the same? AN ANSWER is required under under the
spirit of CPR 16.5 or else you admit the bay is NOT
prescribed. An assertion that the bay is substantially
compliant is a confirmation the bay is NOT fully prescribed or
not fully complaint.
If
you argue substantial compliance, then you have just admitted
the bay is NOT a match, and consequently and numerically,
substantial means some number between 75 and 99, you are
saying that say 80 = 100, 80 purports to be 100, or 80 is
deemed to be 100. What follows with utter precision is;
not
only is it seen as bending the truth with egregious prejudice
and bias; because the prescribed bay has two transverse lines,
and the other side must be 5 mtrs, where this one is 2.4 mtrs,
the bay fails the test of compliance on two MAJOR counts,
with wear and tear arguments not even addressed at all yet. It
fails the test on the design by two major failures. The pcn is
illegal.
I
am not addressing wear and tear issues, since I am being
particularly tolerant of htem, and not pointing to any
particular chink in the lines, this would be something I AM
NOT arguing with, and accepting that lines have wear and tear
within tolerable limits.
If
you argue the lines wore in the middle giving at each end, two
lines instead of the original 1 lines, then how do you
account for the fact that your argument therefore admits the
line is THREE times as thick as it must me? Lines do not
have magical properties of stripping themselves down the
middle, by divine intervention. They wear naturally in
different places. That argument fails on the ground that if it
were true, it shows design and purpose in its wear, and some
supernatural force is at work, to blind the truth, and assist
the council and adjudicator to manufacture truth by appetite
for revenue.
Also
continue with the substantial compliance argument and
you will be meaning and allowing all motorists to
park in substantial compliance also, and overstay within
limits, because the same principle applies both sides, and
penalising for 3 minutes overstay of 60 minutes IS the same
argument on substantial compliance. You have just ruled for
the PCN to be cancelled due to the
VEHICLE'S substantial compliance in parking.
That is acceptable, and overstays will be published to all
motorists as a future argument in these highly questionable
arguments.
Waiting
for your answer, and will continue to wait until it is dealt
with. If not then it is accepted it is non prescribed.
If
the decision is a rule in the council's favour, then the
Appellant shall not disagree with it, the
ruling will simply be disagreeing with itself; due
to internal inconsistencies in logic, sound reason, and
informal fallacies, of which there some hundred, and two have
just been stated. The hearing is in such an outcome
requested for immediate review, not for disagreeing, but for
formal and or informal fallacies where there are many relevant
High court rulings to the contrary of irrelevant arguments and
others.
If
the ruling is adjourned, then the Appellant is entitled to see
any decisions and / or counter arguments BEFORE any adjourned /
postponed ruling is made, in order to be able to comment and
controvert it, as per Justice Sedley's comment on being a
fundamental principle of LAW. The adjudicator is relied on to
pursue such an overriding objective of fairness under the
spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4.
If
the hearing is suggested to belong to a higher court, this is
the obvious 'ad baculum' fallacy argument of force
by appeal to authority where none is needed; an
ordinary child can determine that 2.4 is not 5, and 2 lines are
not 1. It is clear the hearing can make a judgement on such
very simple facts, requiring a very low, sub teen, level of
numeracy, but is avoiding he issue, placing large costs before
the Appellant. This is contrary to the spirit of CPR
1.1-1.4 and demonstrates 'overriding' the
furtherance of the overriding objective of fairness.
Finally
why is this hearing taking place on the Council's premisses,
and not neutral ground?
Duty
to exclude all irrelevant material.
R
v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd
(1999)
Justice
Lightman "The Court may interfere if the Director has
taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to
take into account a relevant consideration."
R
(on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary
of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001)
Lord
Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary
of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to
his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters
relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his
decision aside".
Duty
to consider all relevant material. (there are more.)
R
v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson
(1994)
"Not
satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was
properly considered before the decision was taken"
R
v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte
Balchin (1998)
"The
relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been
omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused
the a decision maker to reach a different
conclusion"
Recommendation
Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11
March(1980)
In
describing this basic principle "an administrative
authority when exercising a discretionary power ..........
observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any
of the factors relevant to the particular case".
This
is a response to the appeal titled
"MY
appeal of Thu, 27 June 2008 ref: PCN by Wayne Pendle."
Statutory Declaration
on Behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council declaration made by
Mr/ Mrs ......
I make this solemn declaration
conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of
the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 (c.62)
No alteration to the question is acceptable, and this document
must be signed and sworn for truth, notarised, either at the
hearing, or later on in another court.
Please Note this question is / shall be submitted under a 'Notice
to admit facts' N266 or later if not admitted / denied now, and
shall apply retrospectively.
Please note that a declaration that is false is governed by the
Perjury Act 1911, and may bring custodial sentencing of up to two
years.
With respect to the TRSGD
2002.
[
] Bay is a
fully prescribed bay or
fully complaint bay, OR
[
] Bay is NOT a
fully prescribed bay or
NOT a fully complaint bay.
Any
other information:
IF
the relevant bay is not a prescribed bay,
but is substantially a
prescribed bay, then you may tick 2. above, NOT 1.
above. Box 1, and 2 are mutually exclusive, the wording may not
be changed. Where this option has been chosen, the council may
argue substantial compliance
in prescribed bays ONLY with substantial compliance in parking;
ie a motorist paying for 60 minutes and overstaying 6 minutes, is
as substantially compliant in parking, as the council is in
substantial compliance
with prescribed bays, and therefore this appeal has to be upheld
for the same reason as the substantial compliance is based and
chosen. This shall grant the same privilege in any future hearing
on the same or similar arguments
Any
failure to sign this form is regarded as an admission in the
adverse sense within the spirit of CPR 16.5. No other format is
acceptable.
A
failure to sign this form or to agree with its principles at the
hearing is an admission that the council is not prepared to
respond to MY
appeal, and as such a ruling on
any other argument means likewise the ADJUDICATOR has
not responded to MY appeal even
if I receive a written response addressed to me, not addressing
the issue of MY appeal; ie, I have not
received a response to MY appeal.
|
