swarb.co home swarb.co.uk
Law discussion forum (UK)
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

BoR 1688 & RTA 1991, parking fines illegal appeal NOW
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next       MAIN LIST of threads
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law
Visit lawindexpro


 
 
 
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gentlemen,
Thanks for both your replies. Two answers in one, with your indulgence.

1.Dls, Site Admin. { Can I please make a suggestion which may hurt } It's fine! It doesn't hurt at all, if the argument is sound. I enjoy the clarity of soundly reasoned arguments and will always bow to cogency, but in like manner I would seek to reply, in an examination of your contentions.

a)I thought you may have understood that I have been in court at least ten times this past eight or so years. (nothing to compare with the daily habit of the tired professional) I have NEVER used rhetoric in court, just the pure logic, and prevailed. This forum is not a courtroom, and I assumed it retained notions of free speech, unless I am to be terminated. That is why I gave myself the license to use images, rather than as you say rhetoric. The images I used happen to be from arguably the greatest playwright ever. So when I say 'they weed our vices and let theirs grow', it happens to be the kind of brevity that was the souls of that man's wit. It's a bit too long to say, they pursue my offences and allow theirs to go ignored, willfully ignoring and suppressing them wherever they can. It's the preference of epistolary style, perhaps that irritates, but then I would argue ( and it's the argument that counts after all isn't it ) with some of the things you have said, if you will be so kind as to bear up with me. { You also say, if I am lucky, they will be polite }, this is a poor comment on the court's professionalism don't you think, are they really that impolite to expect politeness as a rarity? I have so far been treated with impeccable politeness.
Previously our exchange was Quote:
Quote:
The answer is that it is not exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
and my reply was ---
is puzzling.
1.You are saying it's not exactly a fine, and
2.there is a choice to take it to court. )

b)Now that's where I find the legal argument fails, precisely since that time, there was no argued explanation, in fact no explanation whatsoever.
We foolish citizen's remain to be advised exactly what you mean in { If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary. }
so that we can choose not to accept, and not pay voluntarily, I am still waiting for that answer? At least with any postings to me, I do give answers, there lies the difference between our responses and contentions.
c)Irrefutable, I didn't hear any argued rebuttal, or as you say in court, testimony with evidence to rely on. When you have a cogent answer to the above quotation of your own penning, I would be happy to take on board a trimming of style, out of court so to speak, but I don't see why.

2.Theycantdothat

a)You have your arguments round the wrong way, and some words you use indicate an unfamiliarity with meaning, such that if used too frequently & erroneously one might get lost in a sea of words and drown in gibberish.


Take 'disjunct' and 'conjunct' the stems of the words you use with apparent eloquence. You say ( In logic the meaning of "and" and "or" is clear; in legal texts "and" may have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as conjunctive in order to determine the intention of the drafstman.)[sic]. (I never thought the draftsman's intent was supposed to show by the way).
In the OED 'disjunct' means precisely { 1. a. Disjoined, disconnected, separated, separate, distinct; _distant.}and 'conjunct' means { A. as pa. pple. Joined together, conjoined, united, combined in conjunction. }
b)Your argument is a play of semantics and shifting meanings, the tool most used in law to derive fallacious conclusions. Quote [ in legal texts "and" may have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as conjunctive ]. Literally that means 'and' is 'or' and 'or' is 'and', when you choose arbitrarily to make it so, doesn't it?

We are all to believe now, from what you aver here, that the law provides terms that can mean their opposites. That's fascinating, so conjunction is now disjunction and vice versa, NOW I understand why SOME law would be in a mess, (if your contentions were true), and the citizen's of this country confused as they leave courts with 'injustice' on their tongues, when it's written on the outside of the buildings 'Court's of Justice'.
By fair analogy, you make a '+' into a '-', that would not pass even a common sense person's reasoning, let alone a solicitor, barrister or judge. I regret to say. Unacceptable!
Are you quite sure you can pursue this line of argument and actually sustain it?
c)Next you say { Formal logic is concerned with the meaning of words "on the page", }
First I don't see any material difference between words on a page, spoken, carved in stone, or the epiphenomena of cognitive processes. Meanings, while they change through time, they do so at a very slow rate, unless put to abused semantics. The terms Justice and Injustice, around for thousands of years, in the OED since 1390 have remained fairly constant for 600 years or so until very recently with the commonplace use of spin. But in line with your previous argument on conjunctions and disjunctions, I trust the sequitur is likely to be, we go to the court's of justice for injustice nowadays, which as it happens, bears some resemblance to reality.

If you really knew what logic was all about, you would be immediately aware of the three laws of thought, the basis of modern formal logic and its calculus, and would never say it is concerned with words on a page. Logical processes are 'a priori' innate to thought, and not 'a posteriori' or empirically as it were when the words get printed on a page. Logic is concerned with VALID argument forms, (hence the possibility of substitution of variable as in proposition P1, Q1 etc, like algebra ), not the meanings of words or sentences that get jumbled with semantics.

Its only contact with sentences lies precisely, as aforesaid, in the 'Literal meaning of an indicative sentence' and that is closer to the underlying meaning (reading between the lines) than the mere words in their interpretation, that can suffer so badly when used incompetently, making a disjunct into a conjunct. No good legal draftsman should write with such imprecision.
d)I shall refrain from pursuing this too much further, since I could write a dissertation exceeding this page. Suffice to say, I do not see in your argument a process that has followed any reasonably acceptable rule of logic. Even setting aside logic for a moment, a discipline I suggest you are familiar with instinctively, but not formally; unless you can state your formal qualifications in that area showing on what you rely. It's amusing that my last time in court, I said to the Judge precisely that, in part of my summing, it would be a bad day for British Justice were not flexibility essential in the interpretation of the rules, ( not the words ), and he thought and stated clearly, in contrariety to what you have stated.

He thought I was most eloquent, and, on looking at my and my family's qualifications, a man of many fine parts, while on turning to the defendant he found them 'deplorably opportunistic'. This assertion is not frivolous since it was the subject of subsequent exchanges with the court, and on their records as well as mine, where I pointed out that I was NOT eloquent at all, that was merely the way TRUTH sounded.
e)You will persuade us that Logic is to do with semantics, which it is not, and interpretations are to do with finding alternative meanings on words, that have been established for hundreds of years, in order to satisfy some legal rule. This is what is so wrong in most parts of bureaucracy, where there is no particular category for an unusual particular, so it, the particular, gets forced through the die of a template structured rule to fit in order to qualify for attention.
I hope I have answered your points squarely, and await in particular, the response on that issue of voluntary and consensual parking tickets, that increase with the time one fails to consent. I certainly would like to use it with an adjudicator or judge.
E & OI, apologies for any typos, etc.
With the utmost in respect and deference to your formal skills that are not in any way derogated by my reply.
I have said irrefutable, and yet wait to be entertained with a serious cogent refutation of the argument provided on the contradiction adduced between the two statutes. That is what I was always looking and still waiting for, in preference to 'argumentum ad hominem' fallacy classes.
Tony.
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cogito ergo doleo



Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think dls was, rather nicley, trying to tell you to shut up. If not, I apologise and expect deletion of this and my registration forthwith.
_________________
Intelligence is knowing that a banana is a herb. wisdom is not boring everyone else about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 2789

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I wasn't, and nor do I say anything of the sort to you.

I was trying to suggest that the message is getting lost in the rhetoric.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you're saying you didn't say this, the second posting on this thread?
Quote:
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 1929

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this a path trodden before.

The answer is that it is not exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
My own feeling is that the correct approach is to challenge tickets because the signage is not correct.

I can see, it, others can see it, I have a copy of it all. I wonder where I slipped up.
Not to anger the Gods, have it your way, the rest is silence.

The bananas? Just a slip?
Nobody claimed wisdom here, so only the wise bearer of the proverb knows its meaning.
T
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 2789

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your brevity is improving.

I have no idea what your point is. Sorry. I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using them. The court seemed to have said a very similar thing.

To be frank, there is only a very limited time to give to each post. The point I want to make, is that I lost interest in your arguments because there was a distinct excess of wood over trees. I have now, it seems completely lost your argument. I was trying to explain to you the need for brevity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the reply.
I'll take 'your brevity is improving' kindly.

1.In short, as you prefer, I asked if anyone can resolve the contradiction.
2.Your comment { No, I wasn't, and nor do I say anything of the sort to you. }.
Is a similar contradiction, place it alongside with { Sorry. I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using them. }

The words were {
Quote:
The answer is that it is not exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
} You own them not I.

Do you see it? Does every other reader see it? Or do you, as you say cringe at the sight of it and block its truth? It's a contradiction that you so hate, and all argue against the man, not the argument. You don't have to continue reading this..........just go to the conclusion......... I did say the rest is silence, but you returned, as your self esteem instructs.
3.In long.
a)The argument was placed in the form of a request for rebuttal of the irrefutable, (I know you don't like the word, but I had shown a link for the contradiction; these things do exist and I don't choose to find other words for them.), as well as to open the eyes of the weary victim, in many cases of PCN's for trivia, with little time or thought, who pays for the commercial benefit of moving on, and allowing the system to gain in strength against all of us. The one thing about a contradiction that's nice is, no matter what the credent bulk, position in society, expertise, authoritative sophist or casuist, and sheer volume of people who don't see it, it remains true to the end of reckoning. Simply, if 55 million people all can't see it, then they are unfortunately ALL wrong.
b)Just like Giordano Bruno's, argument that the Earth didn't stand on four elephants, but went around the sun, while burning at the stake. He was right, and the rest of the Christian world were not. Don't you like such similar, nay stronger certainties?
c)'The court seemed to have said a very similar thing', I was not unfamiliar with as I mentioned in my response to it, I have the text precisely where it was used by an adjudicator, on advice from a judicial officer of higher rank. The distinction I mentioned remains a fallacy, that will not interest you. I was very eager to hear your full argument, in case there was anything I had overlooked in mine. I heard it more fully by Justice Collins, and his response was to another argument framed more like examination in chief than cross, so even he, was not confronted with the contradiction to resolve, and it is not for him to seek them out, only treat them when they are presented, it wasn't so no blame attaches to him.
d)I explained the reasons I take the licence of writing in long, because, much of what I say requires some explanation for a wider public ( whose expertise may not be in this field ), and the use of analogous ideas, (NOT rhetoric) from a genius in English writing, makes the reading experience more enjoyable for some with relevant interest.
e)My brevity or want of it, is my affair, and with the greatest of respect, nobody unless I am in close quarters in a dictatorship where MIGHT is RIGHT, can direct my epistolary style; which as you will see from closer inspection, is courteous in an almost fawning manner. But as you say your time is limited.
In our present society where 'might is not right, and argument is NOT treason, then Treason's his whose MIGHT suppresses good reason'. POWER in argument is an abuse, argument against the man, 'argumentum ad hominem', is a fallacy, and all the class of arguments I have seen here so far belong to these categories, where I asked for anyone merely to resolve a contradiction. So simple, nobody saw it. Everybody is so concerned with my exposition, style, use of Shakespeare, and logic, that some, like you say can't see the wood for trees. It caused so much anxiety that is an unacceptable argument or persuasion in the world of even considering alteration of my personal reality, that remains as strong as this past 40 years, and is strengthened by what I see here.
f)Telling anyone to speak as one would wish is a sign of intolerance analogous to either the tyranny of the majority (J.S. Mill), or control of dissent or criticism by the powerful, which several of you have dished out for my consumption, but don't like receiving the same. The DIFFERENCE, repeating myself, is that I have answered your arguments, and NOT argued against your persons.
g)To put all the above in the kind of brevity you wish, would constrain me to be rude, and that's not my style.

In conclusion, with kindness, I take it the mention of PCN's as consensual voluntary penalties was a mistake, and there is nothing to rely on. Do you realise how misleading that might be for those who visit your site, really needing advice? They would end up in court with belief in an argument lost in 5 seconds flat. I didn't so much as come for advice, I came to test an argument which I imagined would be either shown to be fallacious and I should have learned something, or else agreed with in a general principle strengthening the reasons for bringing it into the open for all to see.
I know you have not read much of my responses, because some points you make had been answered prior to asking them. So this is not particularly placed for your own consumption, but to show the power of the laws of thought, that all interlocutors seem to find so distressing. I didn't invent them, they were placed in the human community by clever individuals, and sustained for over 2000 years. I think thay are of value to mankind, in a world of spin.

I will leave you with this thought, and I see you have the moral courage to admit a mistake, which is a sign of rare excellence I am proud to discern in you. Please don't be angry, at such a paternal comment, it's meant kindly. I am probably senior enough to be your father.

How do you reconcile saying your first denial with your second denial?
There is an escape to such conclusions, it is the law of excluded middle but requires moral courage, that you have, as aforementioned. I wonder.

No, I wasn't, and nor do I say anything of the sort to you. I think the typo Do was DID
and
I have not denied using them.

E & OI, apologies for any typos.
Yours most respectfully, with no intent other than to explain, where brevity cannot serve. I don't like anyone being left in confusion.
Tony
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The law does indeed say that "and" can mean "or" and that "or" can mean "and".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1.You simply hypostasized a concept, so by your rule, the LAW now speaks does it? It's an animate thing capable of conversation, and as such gains authority? Like saying Buckingham Palace said this morning........ X. Is that an argument? The bricks spoke. This is Alice in wonderland material, that one is supposed to confront in awe.

2.Saying things without something to rely on them requires the averment of a living or published authority of integrity, I just pointed out the fallacy of 'appeal to authority', you must have missed it. You show no source you rely on, it needs to be a unquestionable high authority with impeccable integrity, but you don't refer to anything other than the concept. The LAW doesn't fit that bill. It's like saying The university does indeed say "you can say what you like and mangle language as you wish", it gives you permission.

I can't respond to comments of this type that seek to score points with flimsy material. At this juncture I leave the forum to its own, where an exchange of shibboleths appear to please, there is no personal gain in knowledge at this point. I may return if it takes an upward trend. NO prejudice intended.
Tony
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have said:

Quote:
The fact that the RTA 1991 contains no stated intention to repeal all or any part of the Bill of Rights – and – as I have said previously – the Declaration of Rights – which provides the Contract by which this kingdom is lawfully governed – is beyond the power of parliament to repeal!


and

Quote:
Your statement “it is established law that the provisions of the Bill of Rights can be amended.” everything above argues the contrary save the act you refer to in “The Catholic Relief Act 1829 repealed the provisions in the Bill which prevented Catholics .... Government” I agree here this is the case


On the one hand you say the Bill cannot be repealed and on the other concede that it has been. How do you reconcile these two opposing positions with Aristotelean logic?

I would also like to have your authority for the proposition that the Bill cannot be amended. I am not aware of any principle of entrenchment in English constitutional law, but rather the principle that Parliament is supreme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about this?

Ordinarily the words "and" and "or," are in no sense interchangeable terms, but, on the contrary, are used in the structure of language for purposes entirely variant, the former being strictly of a conjunctive, the latter, of a disjunctive, nature. Nevertheless, in order to effectuate the intention of the parties to an instrument, a testator, or a legislature, as the case may be, the word 'and' is sometimes construed to mean "or." This construction, however, is never resorted to except for strong reasons and the words should never be so construed unless the context favors the conversion; as where it must be done in order to effectuate the manifest intention of the user; and where not to do so would render the meaning ambiguous, or result in an absurdity; or would be tantamount to a refusal to correct a mistake.


From http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/lo48morales/lo93-006.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alright, but this is the last time, next time come back when you have read the material that already answered these points in earlier postings please.

However, this is all off the purpose, but there is one question I would ask any interlocutor, now, what is their agenda. With the country up in arms over abusive intolerant trivial enforcement, and the DoT report of the view the RTA is a mess, why do your arguments all appear as palliatives for the government? Are you part of the 'claps', 'removal' and 'diversion' team that surround speakers to ensure dissent is not allowed, or to divert attention from the last comment with a name like theyCANTdothat, where your arguments all aver theyCANdothat?


If there is no denial, and a continuation of such distracting argument forms purely for the nonce, then the previous comment shall be deemed true by the standard procedures of adverse inferences from silence.



I've seen this in Romania,where a number of employees play a game with the public on topics like REVOLUTIA, to keep the forums chatty, but the substance is far from it, being an outlet for rage. All your arguments are FOR the present abuses to continue and reveal an inclination NOT to try and change them for the better, this is curious? Are you part of the government machinery, because all your positions appear to have their agenda, and your rheostatic use of meanings would contrive a world of chaos if generalised, just the sort of spin many have become inured to.

Anyway, to treat two of them, in the simplest straightforward way, which means repeating myself, and
I rarely do that more then twice.


Quote:
{ On the one hand you say the Bill cannot be repealed and on the other concede that it has been. How do you reconcile these two opposing positions with Aristotelean logic? }


1.EASY, The two positions in Aristotelian logic are misdirected to appear contradictory and you actually state opposing; anyway it's from Aristotle through 2000 years to modern formal logic, & was already treated in the earlier post on:


Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:39 pm. Remember? I pointed out the distinction between 'de facto' and 'de jure'.

The 'de facto' situation is the abuse and effective repeal of the Declaration quietly while revenues continue, no alteration for the RTA is scheduled for a year which is simply BUY time. The 'de jure' situation nobody wants to face up to because it cannot be reconciled
save through the 2nd law of excluded middle, now you manifestly argue to be an authority in logic, so the mere mention of the 2nd law, should resolve that for you. I hope that is clear, it should have been so way back. There's your answer to your suggested contradiction, which is NOT a contradiction unless both parts are members of the same concept as you will know only too well from your lectures of Venn Theorems on classes.

My Post, Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:49 pm
Already answered the nature of the built in indemnity from future repeal within the actual Declaration, & through the subsequent mandatory requirement of its express repeal, and how an implied repeal is not permitted, unless of course they can get away with it. Again, as an expert in logic, you will know instantly that the 2nd law is the only means of escaping the contradiction, other than as aforementioned a fix, whitewash or abuse which is what we have at present, so I don't need to explain that again do I? There is also a graceful dignified way out of the whitewah, but the moral courage is rarely seen.
So in response to your { I would also like to have your authority for the proposition that the Bill cannot be amended.} I already gave you SEVEN, I presume your silence is a rebuttal on each? Nothing I have said argues that the government is not supreme, or it can't do anything it likes, look at the sleaze, and gifts for titles to see HOW it's all actually done, contrary to the spirit of the laws of course. Most members of the public already know this without actually rationalising it anyway, so please don't ask me how its achieved.
However, on the supremacy of Parliament, I suggest until it earns the title supreme, we rely on the supremacy of the electorate that would be the correct root of authority, and no elecotrate gave authority to sleeze and spin as far as I can remember, nor were these two specialities in any manifesto I think. I remain to be corrected?? I also dont think the electorate authorised abuse and intolerant enforcement of trivia either, unless you are able to point me to the requisite authority, hopefully unlike the one below.
Recurring to the earlier post:
2.The points you make that I shall address, are I feel two.
1.You state -- taking the wording of the Bill of Rights literally and not interpreting it in a historical context.-- I think all of these titles below treat the argument against that notion
1. JUDGMENT OF LAWS L.J A MR JUSTICE CRANE 2002, para 62-3.
says ordinary statutes may be repealed Constitutional statutes MAY NOT.
2.Supporting Judgments in Seward V Vera Cruz 1884,
3.Kutner V Phillips 1891
4.West Ham Wardens V Fourth City 1892
5.Blackpool corpn V Starr Estate co Ltd, 1922
6.Birmingham City cncl V Oakley 2001. extract scanned spelling errors included. JUDGMENTS IN
Lord Hoffman •..........
7.'The words must be construed as 'always speaking' in the sense used by Lord Steyn in R -v- Ireland (1998) AC 147,158-159, I quite agree that when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator in those days'....
This doctrine does not however mean that one can construe the language of an old statute to mean something conceptually different from what the contemporary evidence shows that Parliament must have intended'

The final part, as to the art of sophistry, casuistry, cant, balk-logic, and nuances of words in the English language. Knowing as you would, as an expert in semantics, the origins of senses and references, examined well by Stephenson , Frege,and their predecessors, the origins of words like table or pen, derived from simple sounds whose sense was agreed by custom and habit, so it's just as easy to point to a table and make the sound strooble, where if all agree, then it becomes so codified. So, table and strooble are now interchangeable words. BUT a rich language like English, has no difficulty whatsoever in casting legal agreements in unequivocal and unambiguous terminology. To do otherwise intentionally is, in my view to obfuscate with repugnant deliberation and cloak when the alternative is so easily present. Why would one do that?

But to the text you provide as an authority. This looks like an extract from an attorney, and NOT a judges ruling. As we all know, attorneys and lawyers will find ANY extenuating use of a term to prove a case for money. This is why TRUTH if allowed out, will always defeat proof, since truth cannot be false, proof can. Your authority sounds like one of the Chambers episodes with John Bird, saying NO in response to a fraudulent claimant, wanting to make a claim. He explains between two conflicting parties, how he meant actually the YES side of the meaning of NO. It's of course a comedy. Lawyers are notorious for achieving these apparent twists of meanings as shown by every movie where the witness says you twisted my words; in amazement. I did say an authority of impeccable standing,and integrity. Yours doen't look like one, even if the attorney got away with it. We have the same in English law, like the privity rule of 1861, where a contract was overturned by the doctrine of consideration and gave lawyers headaches for 140 years. The supreme authority is TRUTH, the sound of TRUTH, the empirical tests for TRUTH, and the corresponding scientific methodology applied to verify. What men get up to is a poor imitation in many cases of all this, and especially in court with money at the root of the mangling of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, in biased selection sets, taking selected samples and making hasty generalisations.
The effect of your argument if promulgated throughout the judiciary, will have contracts not worth their paper, since a promise now means not a promise, and when I said I will give money and forbearance in exchange, and default on the money, that will all be quite acceptable because I really meant money OR forbearance, and forbearance satisfies the truth table matrix, meaning that I can forego the payment part, fascinating for contracts isn't it?

take a simple contract under your new rule.....

Where I owed a debt that could be settled by (capital) money 'and' interest, ( say £100 plus interest of £5 ), when it come to settlement date, I only have to say that 'AND' means 'OR', I can settle the debt with the mere £5 ONLY. How convenient!


Contracts will be in tatters, promise breaching a part of every day life, not much of it now anyway, and words reduced to mean whatever I fancy at that moment. I said it's Alice in Wonderland stuff,and remain unconvinced by the authority you rely on, indeed it is not an authority the URL suggests it is more like an opinion LO morals which appears quite appropriate. I uppercased the special words.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/LO48MORALES/lo93-006.htm

It's been an unbeneficial traversal for me, I was looking for the site admin's response before continuance in a serious fashion. I think your topic has been fully treated, and you have at least a weeks material in the SEVEN acceptable authorities of cases plus much more to be found elsewhere. My next reply to you will be in conformity with the Site admin's suggestion, a one liner, that I trust will meet all the requirements that this one merited.
E & OI, apologies for typos,
T
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:46 am; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So are you saying that Tony Blair is only PM de facto and not de jure?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tortus



Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does not matter for it is Tony Blair's wife who is Catholic, not Tony Blair.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tortus



Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony wrote:
So you're saying you didn't say this, the second posting on this thread?
Quote:
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 1929

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this a path trodden before.

The answer is that it is not exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.
My own feeling is that the correct approach is to challenge tickets because the signage is not correct.

I can see, it, others can see it, I have a copy of it all. I wonder where I slipped up.
Not to anger the Gods, have it your way, the rest is silence.

The bananas? Just a slip?
Nobody claimed wisdom here, so only the wise bearer of the proverb knows its meaning.
T


dls wrote:
Your brevity is improving.

I have no idea what your point is. Sorry. I wrote those words. Yes. I have not denied using them. The court seemed to have said a very similar thing.

To be frank, there is only a very limited time to give to each post. The point I want to make, is that I lost interest in your arguments because there was a distinct excess of wood over trees. I have now, it seems completely lost your argument. I was trying to explain to you the need for brevity.


How about being more concise yourself dls; "sorry, I was wrong" might be a good start!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tortus wrote:
It does not matter for it is Tony Blair's wife who is Catholic, not Tony Blair.


I quote from the Bill:

...do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same

The choice of orange is deliberate. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:    
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:   
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group