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

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 483

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


I was not addressing you and no I shall not stay out of it if you choose to air your differences in public so I am entitled to contribute.

I do not know Cognito and he can quite rightly defend himself. I am just making my opinion known.

You are defensive that someone agrees with Cognito, a sign of weakness
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No I don't throw insults at anyone except those that do so first.

Cogito is so inconsistent and insulting I reserve the right to redeliver the insult or jest as it may be.

He again says he has nothing to contribute, YET HE HOLDS similar VIEWS on another thread he doesn't wish to place here.
Here is his comment on the other thread.
What I do object to are cameras placed as such to maximise revenue.

This is ANOTHER form of contradiction where he say the thread is worthless, and he can't support it, yet his views DO support it! AND he DOES give comment of value elsewhere. YOU think about it.

Now for you!

No I will refrain from an responding in like fashion with you because I like to give people a chance and refrain for a while.
I am not trading them with YOU yet.
This is the first time we have spoken AND the first thing you have to say IS
I have read all these pathetic posts.

Very childish indeed that you feel the need to reply to every comment.

I guess you might be another part of the team, perhaps?

But you haven't spoken to me, and here you deliver me at least TWO insults. Straight off. They are insults aren't they? OR are you really going to maintain they're just your opinion, because if they are opinions, then so are all mine, fair's fair now! Lets not play semantics where your views are opinions and mine are insults. You also achieve all this; without referring to the flaws, while simultaneously and benignly overlooking the stark jarring facts of two contradictions by dls,and cogito, along with semantic juggling by theycantdothat; all untenable, suggesting you have either a far more than an impartial unbiased view or the logic is based entirely on personal preference or personality taste.

I will set them aside for the time being, but be sure if you contine in that refrain, you WILL receive the same or much more than you expected, in return, so count this one as being owed, unless you wish to retract. I hope not to speak to you again. Consider your next insult or opinion as you wish to vary the term, carefully please. JUST AN OPINION!

You have the evening to yourself from me. I will check back for contradictions and OPINIONS tomorrow. Have a nice evening, for the first time we have met. Youre entitled to your views if expressed within constraints of civility.

I have read all these pathetic posts.
Very childish indeed that you feel the need to reply to every comment made by someone and cannot take it in your stride to ignore it. Cogito is clearly expressing STATING (my comment) his own view as expected on a public forum

If anyone has to keep quiet it is you Tony. No doubt you will reply and throw insults at me for expressing my opinion. I expect it.

No don't expect it unless you cross the boundaries and send me more having been given fair & courteous notice.

Last edited by Tony on Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 483

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can post in as much length and colour as you like I am not interested because, in my opinion, your arguments are flawed.

It is a skill to have a healthy debate without feeling insulted, defensive and having to 'band up'. I have contributed on forums for years and have tendered legal advice. At all times I am aware I do not have to take the views of others and just accept it and remain tact and diplomatic

I am not defending or arguing for Cognito and as I have stated I do not know him/her nor have I had any direct communication with him/her. I am more than capable of standing on my own two feet and speaking for myself.

I am afraid that your replies do not offer much credability or weighting. In fact, EOI should be EOE. In any event this won't exempt you from any defamatory comments should this arise.

I submit that you have made your points, whether agreed to or not and further submit that you move on in your own interests.

I wish you well
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cogito ergo doleo

Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to put in here, the reason that I have contributed to the other thread on speed cameras is because that thread is well behaved and reasoned. It is a true debate, and not merely a sounding board for people to shout that they are right and others are wrong. I have made myself perfectly clear on this matter.

As to insults, I have merely criticised this thread because of the way it was going. I do not feel insulted by any comments about me, simply because I am bigger than that. Handsongroup is not defending me - he is merley, like I have in the past, objecting to the behaviour of a couple of individuals (such as insulting the hundred odd users of this site by calling them all losers, but I don't want to labour the point).

I will fight my own battles or walk away from them as I see fit. Others will do the same. If you care to do so, carry on the original topic, but I suggest that you look at other threads on this forum, see how they are conducted, and then look at you own behaviour on this thread from the outset. whether or not you do so is, of course your own business. I have no need or desire to see your manic mutterings any further.
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
Site Admin

Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 2789

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time to do my moderation bit. Please, please drop the tempearature - all round. There have been personal comments but nothing too terrible yet.

Get back to the discussion of law, what the law is or what it should be or might be.

I may start exercising the red pen shortly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed too! Save for the comment below which in my view is not likely to aggravate, but clarify a few things.

I have no problem with temperature, and don't mind this thread being deleted except it would wipe out all the errors made by people with fallacious reasoning powers.
To conclude the response to handsongroup.
BTW it's cogito not cognito
to correct your reference. And you are fully entitled to your opinions, none of us here have yet had the benefit of your arguments however, we await in suspense.

your arguments are flawed.

If you had the powers of reasoning in logic, you might just point out the flaws, instead of making averments as if you were an authority. Cogent debate requires something to rely on, and remarks like that are certainly not rebuttals, I suggest you return when up to speed on HOW rebuttals are achieved, not simply saying so!

First my E&OI is deliberate as opposed to your EOE, you should have seen by now I coin words and expressions of my own, understanding them is dead easy.

I don't need to avoid the Errors and Omissions Excepted form. I repeat my term errors and OMISSIONS are included, so you can see I do not suffer from the fear inherent in the standard comments of admit nothing, and I never said that.
I said it, and I stand by it, errors very much included if anyone wants to point out the errors cogently I am an academic and will listen attentively, sue for defamation, well they can try.
I fear nothing from people who cannot sustain one thought to the next without inconsistency, nor those who think an exercise in semantic juggling will win an argument because their interlocutor is foggy on meanings, where I have a clear perception, more than most. I don't retract what I say by denying I said it, like others.

Your apology being omitted is noted for the time being, since you refrained from adding to the two already delivered, but were unable to refrain from delivering the mere sleight in the comment about using colours, { "Very childish indeed", I SEE, little icons with pants down are fine, highlighted emphasis is not. So long as we know your preferences }, let's say two and a half. All remain nothing to do with the thread or its argument. 'Contributing to forums for years', from what I see so far, hardly gains in credent bulk. and { tact and diplomatic..... I differ on that. }
If my manner and language offends, then look away. Deliver derogations or full/half insinuations, veiled in irony, ambiguity or unsupported opinions or assertions; as if they were arguments, and in return expect better than you give.

Other than this comment, I shall abide by the ruling of dls, and hope others will too. I found the exercise of coming down to the level of insinuation, sleights, riddles, innuendo and varied forms of derogation simply demeaning and unedifying. and had no intention to continue it.

Respecting cogito's last comment, we have seen the demonstration of his argument forms, suffice to say I don't think I need to re-highlight them, they remain carved in granite & the same style, just toned down a little. I for one, didnt regard it as a battle, more a mere contretemp, play on words or little tennis match. I take the view that any party wishing to support the side of argument by way of continued personal 'ad hominem', should at least traverse and show with some precision, how they reconcile the contradictions by dls,cogito, and the semantic argument by thaycantdothat, reconciling its exposed unsustainable consequence to contractual law. Then they may be in a position to sustain a debate on the original argument forms.
I asked at the beginning of this thread IF anyone could show the flaws in the argument, nobody yet has done that., indeed I think nobody has even read it, or yet understood it.
It was expected, and not disappointing.
I trust we can leave it there.

Yours most respectfully.

A large PS.

Before I close my part in the debate of the DoR and sections of the RTA, from this thread, I felt I should leave what the three arguments were all about, so that if the thread remains, anyone can see from a search for these titles, there was no single reference at any time to treat those arguments here. All that was treated in direct relationship was originally from dls, namely that he had heard the argument before, not sure where, and mentioned try the 'civil penalty' from that very first reply, nothing relevant flowed.

I think he may have been referring to the Townsend v TfL argument that is found at PATAS. I had looked over this, and of course the Justice Collins JR, where the arguments were not put forward, due to a want of academia. Apart from these cases and the off topic subject of De Crittenden's adjudication there were no others available as far as I know of.

I had examined these primary cases, and found them formally untenable. Without the slightest hesitation, the notion of a civil penalty belonging to any sub class of detriments other than and mutually exclusive from the same class that includes fines and forfeitures is irrational. The only acceptable notion is that civil penalties are merely a different kind of penalty within the aforesaid class. I shall not argue why or how, because the debate never opened here and I cannot expect worthwhile strong formal rebuttals. This is simply a re-statement of the issues to show coverage of the full circle traversed excluded them already.

The three titles to the early arguments are here below. My site analysis showed no more than two brief referring links there proving that nobody here looked at the arguments, all preferring to attack off beat notions that 'and' could mean 'or' or else references to the Guninness book of records, and the usage of colours on my threads. It is plain that after the recent exchanges, I would not seriously consider entertaining a debate here, on the potential flaws in the arguments that originated this thread, since the amount of focus and want of formal reasoning thus far would be of no material value for an exercise in court, I was looking for far more serious focussed adversarial refutations of a formal nature rarely to be found in circles of law except at Barrister or Judge levels, simply for usage in my formal deposition to sustain a better delivery if and when it comes for me to present them in a judicial review that may be never, unless I have an opportunity.
Finding contradictions so easily in these exchanges gave me no confidence of others finding such flaws in my own.
Perhaps later on, since there is no present interest, I will place the three FULL rather than the present early drafts already on the web. Clearly it would not interest anyone here, so I leave the matter that this thread can take any direction whatsoever, as it began.
The above is, formally, a hasty generalisation.

The arguments were:

1.Syllogistic reasoning,
......(a)Contextual evidence from which unequivocal inferences flow.

2.Formal logical reasoning, derived from Aristotle, no empirical grounds required.
......(a)The simplest of the three laws of thought, (1) the contradiction.

3.Scientific methodology,
......(a)Sufficient and necessary conditions.

4.Contextual inferencing has been added,
......(a)Which relies on syllogisms, logic and of context that precedes percept. Not that a lawyer would be likley to know what such a thing is.

You can see these titles, or their contents, were never referred to on any thread above, giving reasonable grounds to confirm nobody even had a notion what was available for discussion. To pursue such a thing would be a total a waste of time based on what was delivered previously.


The new money arguments on CO2 emissions are similarly flawed and illogical. Richmond for example wants to tax people with 4 * 4 drive vehicles for PARKING because they pollute more than others. Think of the logic and childishness of it all, and its conspicuous chase for revenue without thinking. Tax motorists for driving NOT parking. (I said this elsewhere on August 8th 2006) The more people stay still, and avoid driving around to avoid wardens, the less CO2 emissions.

It's another Government and council, hot air biased emission of the same kind as that destroys our world by plundering the most hard working and least wealthy. When the RTA 1991 act is properly reformed to target moving vehicles rather than stationary ones the more the climate will be assisted, AND the sanity of normal people. A little sanity at the top would help. Think on the connection a little, and I am sure it will be as clear as the midday sun, parking is not the major problem facing mankind, driving too much is what needs to be trimmed back.

For those arguing against substantial compliance this may be worth reading...

I am informed that several post Jackson rulings at PATAS have dismissed some appeals on Jackson's ruling in clear preference to some councils who had substantial compliance, allowing the two references to apply to one date only, rather than two. For those arguing at Patas, the argument should take the form of. Expect Bias... At court, this issue is being tested.

There is a clear difference between a date of contravention, notice, issue, service and payment. With respect to any, but particularly that of contravention and notice or issue, Only TWO expressed dates resolves any uncertainty on which of the two dates, the date of payment is triggered.

For many years PATAS have made this clear, with rulings upholding appeals against several councils, with compliance to statute in this area being mandatory, by the term MUST being used in section 66, (3),(c). of the RTA 1991.

Justice Jackson on 2nd August ruling, reinforced the position by PATAS against Barnet's substantial compliance appeal. If PATAS confers a preference towards one council over another it shows bias. Based on information to that effect, PATAS has ruled in favour of some council's substantial compliance, where Barnet's was dismissed. This is clear bias and prejudice. So long as it is seen for what it is, I don't mind either way, but it is the clearest display of the want of integrity at PATAS if they continue to pursue this line. As expected, only a court hearing or another JR appears to be the away to stop them consolidating this position.

Depending on how your borough is treating this issue and your own contraventoin in context, I can advise that a number of litigations are under way to cancel and recover monies from non compliant PCNs. Substantial compliance is NOT compliance. For the logic, and case law references to defeat this invidious practice of preferment, the site at

categories of fallacies, laws of thought, and forms of logical inferencing towards sound reasoning, and dismantling spin are here..


The motorist victory links to a page case won, of restitution up to 6 years under the statute of limitations, for three parking tickets, on a "mistake of Fact" The claim for a refund of three parking tickets, MONEY back took about ten minutes in court, and was upheld without problem.


meaning flawed PCNs can be claimed back.... links you to several cases that have been won, and the ongoing new claim detailed under are and will be updated there. The new case 193 page claim will take some time to place. but details are below.

is being continuously updated with sections on refunds, contextual inferencing, fallacies of conduct and more to assist your approach where proedures are illegal. Ghost skipping of Notices of Rejections and skipping to Charge Certificates plus empty threats without debt registration are all to be exposed shortly. Look at the right hand new menu.

Case monitoring and updates will take place on the link just above, where this claim (all pages) will be posted as deemed fit.
As at 12th Dec 2006 a case was issued in court against my local council, for the following offences.
Particulars of Claim.
Statutes in contrariety, breach or contravention listing “ACT(s)” numbered 1-15, with brief introduction and statement of claim, followed by a more detailed list plus case law rulings, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's six principles of good administration, and others after the introduction. The claimant shall rely on case law rulings, with application of disciplines in reasoning of formal logic, syllogisms, scientific methodology, and contextual inferencing throughout traversal.
“Without prejudice whatsoever”
1.The Road Traffic Act 1991, section 66 – (3) (c),(d),(e), plus attempt at section 70, ( JR ?)
a.Claimant sees this part as a “mistake of fact”, nullity, and unenforceable at the outset.
2.The Road Traffic Act 1991, SCHEDULE 6.—2. (7), (a), (b), 4. (a), (b), (c), 5. (1), (2), (3). plus 6.—(1), (2) (a),(b),(c), (3). and 7. Unlawful and wilfully negligence in conduct.
Breaches in SCHEDULE 6, over time, mean and have consequences for the remainder.
3.Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13, part 2, part 5, 21B – 1, 21E Duties for purposes 1. -(b), 4. (c), (d) and 49A General duty parts -1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). Disfavoured.
4.Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40, 1. - (1), (a), (b). Breached.
5.Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) Chapter 42, 6. - (1), and (6) "An act" includes a failure to act, plus Derogations. 14. - (1), Breached.
6.The European convention on Human Rights, Protocol 5, Article 6, Article 8, parts 1, and 2, Article 14. Breached
7.Tort, Breach of Statutory duties,Negligence in the above recitals, - duty of care imposed by compliance with, and breach of duty of care arising from the purpose of the ACTS 1-5 above, and that this duty passes the three stage Caparo test and Wednesbury principles.
8.Magna Carta. Relevant clauses 39, 40. as collateral constitutional declarations & principles,
9.Declaration and Bill of Rights 1668-9, relevant tenet. Where it will be shown that there ARE TWO de facto contrarieties of de jure constitutional declarations that are as close to the pure form of contradictions as to make present rulings at PATAS logically untenable.
10.The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, 1:-- (1),(a), d. (2). Preceding 3. above in time.
11. Freedom of Information Act 2000. 10. - (1). Breached
12. Misrepresentation Act 1967, in general terms, negligent and fraudulent.
13.One other Act, breach and clarification to be unfolded at stage 2, or at the outcome of case.
14. Deposing false statements and allegations, - as truths.
15. Malfeasance.

The claimant asserts the above statutes to different degrees have been breached and procedural opportunism provides the reasoning behind them. The question of his rights to legitimate expectations from statutes to protect him is whether they are ephemeral ideals or shall the court uphold them.
Claimant was compelled to suffer traversal the above list of breaches over 8 months, against one alleged contravention lasting sixty seconds, while paying the Penalty Charge Notice in advance at twice the stipulated rate. Please compare and identify wherein lies the justice of it.
Then, please compare conferring about 40,000 penalties and damages, weekly, of which many are like the above, and reconcile why and how the councils is not culpable under the laws referred to, and undeserving of receiving punitive and exemplary damages, for the bundle of malfeasances shown in the list. Declaring falsities within the RTA 1991, and pursuing a vexatious course of conduct rendered as the offence of Harassment, both carrying penalties.
The claimant apologise for style, typing errors, and thorough proof, reading, he lacks the resources of the council. He also deposes this claim with utmost respect towards all concerned, in particular His / Her Honour presiding at any hearings whose learned wisdom in law is humbly respected and requested in procedure and directions please.


Enforcement of a sixty second alleged Penalty Charge Notice, PCN, parking contravention.

Short Particulars of Claim and approach. 1 / 193
This Short Index. 2 / 193
The case commencement in ONE page only. *** 3 / 193
Procedural digression and questions 4 / 193
Introduction 5 / 193
Please go directly here for the
Main contentions (about 5-6 minutes reading each)***
Opening statement *** 7 / 193
Concluding statement *** 8 / 193
The Justice Jackson Ruling. 35 / 193
Conclusions that should flow from the aforesaid traversal
Notice to admit facts 31 / 193
Detailed particulars of claim where required to traverse to Main Index 19 / 193
Contextual evidence.
Main Index..........cont.............
Case monitoring and updates will take place on the link just above, where this claim (all pages) will be posted as deemed fit.

Coming shortly, just a matter of timing,
Already deposed, 5 inconsistencies and twenty contradictions and contrarieties.

To show willing just examine these few, without their exhibits, all is going public soon.

Twenty of the more obvious Contradictions & Contrarieties.

1.Contradicts the existence of a letter to which it replies: Exhibit 1 P 163
Letter from Commercial Law- Litigation, for the Director of Law and administration. 03/10/2006.
“We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you."

2.Contradicts itself, reviewing records of representations that don't exist:
We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you."

3.Contradiction 3rd Oct C. Mi...., 31st May - C. Mi...., the SAME writer,
Letter from Commercial Law- Litigation, for the Director of Law and administration. 31/05/2006.
“We have been provided with the correspondence you have sent our client...” Exhibit 2 P 165
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
Page 6 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