parking fines 'are invalid because of rule changes'
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Wed Apr 23,
2008 4:16 pm
Post subject: 10,000 parking fines 'are invalid
because of rule changes'
|10,000 parking fines 'are
invalid because of rule changes'
THESE and signs / lines issues affect
almost ALL borough COUNCILS.....
Motoring Editor. Evening
parking tickets should be scrapped because they were
issued under the "wrong" regulations, campaigners said
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
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.
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
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
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
with lots more to
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
|Posted: Wed Apr 23,
2008 8:21 pm
Post subject: I said more to come....
|LATEST IN WATCH BBC
TV.... POLICE COMPLAINT maladministration, Fraud,
STOP PRESS to help you more...
learn which signs are legal and which NOT.
Pictures EACH of
1028 and 1032 bays that are illegal and legal.
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?
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.
Just to synchronise with the electorate's view
of how this country is being run, off the rails.
procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court
Is now here, no more comments
times are GMT + 1 Hour
You cannot post new topics in this
You cannot reply to topics in this
You cannot edit your posts in this
You cannot delete your posts in this
You cannot vote in polls in this
© 2001, 2005 phpBB