swarb.co.uk

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

10,000 parking fines 'are invalid because of rule changes'

THESE and signs / lines issues affect almost ALL borough COUNCILS.....
David Williams, Motoring Editor. Evening standard.
22.04.08

Thousands of parking tickets should be scrapped because they were issued under the "wrong" regulations, campaigners said today.

About 10,000 fines were handed out in Camden after new rules came into effect on 31 March. On that day, parking attendants became "civil enforcement officers" and councils had to pass new Traffic Management Orders to make their work legal, according to campaign group ParkingAppeals. Instead, it claims, Camden continued to issue penalties under the old legislation.

The group's founder, Neil Herron, says the council issued faulty tickets for 18 days for parking meter and pay and display "offences" - and that unenforceable tickets are still being issued for yellow line offences. He is threatening to take Camden to court unless it overturns the fines.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23479671-details/10,000%20parking%20fines'are%20invalid%20because%20of%20rule%20changes'/article.do

Nice to print the allegation and PR replie below, without a rebuttal. Four comments were put to Evening standard NONE put forward.
HERE is the rebuttal and disambiguation to the council's PR crafting for public consumption.

How Camden HIDES TRUTH......in economic economic PR statements for gain.

Their spokesman and --- SPOKES. Emphasis added.

A spokesman for Camden council said: "We are confident we have acted lawfully. The power to make Traffic Management Orders is conferred by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984. Therefore the changes brought about by the Traffic Management Act 2004, which deal with the enforcement of parking contraventions, do not affect the validity of our existing Traffic Management Orders."

Constructing what LOOKS like a syllogism, HOW to tell a seeming truth while HIDING a LIE.... Questions not answered or specified,

1."We are confident we have acted lawfully. ---- WHEN, during which period of relevancy? Note the choice of preterite tense. It may be that they have acted ... but it is not that they are acting during the relevant period of time.. ( suppresio veri suggesti falsi, law dictionary means Fraud see here, and the meaning of false representations in the fraud act, sections 1-4 even if it is misleading.)

2.The power to make Traffic Management Orders is conferred by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.----- SO WHAT? HAVE THEY EXERCISED that POWER LAWFULLY during the relevant period?

3.Therefore ..... (Based on TWO hypothetical premisses, undetermined as to TRUTH, we make a conclusion that MAY be true or false, BUT is irrelevant anyway..)

a)......................the changes brought about by the Traffic Management Act 2004, which deal with the enforcement of parking contraventions, do not affect the validity of our existing Traffic Management Orders."

This is an amalgam of fallacies. First fallacy species of 'petitio principii', the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises; Namely the conclusion is based on an ASSUMPTION that is undetermined and IS the issue to be PROVED. THE TMA changes ARE MANDATORY.... Other internal fallacies, Fallacy species of 'ignoratio elenchi' ;

( presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question) then choosing and using qualifiers that are irrelevant and ignoring ones that are. The Swapping out a relevant term(s) for an irrelevant one, We are NOT concerned with the validity of paperwork we are concerned with it's LEGAL ENFORCEABILITY. There are MANY more here. ONLY for the specialist. For the average reader this is probably already too much. This conscious swapping is 'mens rea' to the depostion in writing and is profiled by the agenda of target driven revenue in the newly so called, 'baseline performance indicators'. It is the art or economic and economic truth, heralded in when New labour called in advertising pr agencies to promote its policies in the abstract.

Get the full story here...
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Neil%20Heron.html

with lots more to come..
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

LATEST IN WATCH BBC TV.... POLICE COMPLAINT maladministration, Fraud, Criminal Conduct.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7363599.stm

STOP PRESS to help you more...

Look and learn which signs are legal and which NOT.

here..
Pictures EACH of 1028 and 1032 bays that are illegal and legal.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/RB.html

click and look, then choose where you park in future to ensure your better chance of making an appeal.

NOT much to learn at all.....5mns you will remember for years to come.

STOP PRESS to help you more...Fri, 2 May 2008 16:40:10

Leeds Parking Problems ... similar to Camden, or worse?
You decide.

This is the BBC piece on Leeds City Council's parking enforcement regime. You be the judge of its legality. The most powerful quote was not used in the excert above so it is listed below and forms part of the file handed to the Police. The names of the Government officials have been obscured but the Police are aware of their identity.

"... attempted fraud or extortion..." not my words but the words of one Government official to another. Hard to believe? The document we managed to get our hands on (along with many others just as damning, is shown below).

The leaked document (oops docyMEANT) is below the video.

http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2008/05/leeds-parking-problems-similar-to.html

Just to synchronise with the electorate's view of how this country is being run, off the rails.

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

INSIGHT! Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court

Is now here, no more comments allowed.....

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/swarb/swarb/insight1.htm

---------------------------------------------------
_________________
Tony