( Left is a
sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger pressure
Pictures for links, end pictures to enlarge.
As in other FREE pages available for cases on this website.
Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd, Wedgwood Ltd, United Parcel Service (U.P.S.) Royal Mail.
Are you yet fed up being told a
pack o'flies in rebuttable presumptions that the conferrer
delivers to you, in his belief, that you KNOW to be false and to
the contrary. Here's how to deal with them both;
presumption is a presumption
that is taken to be true, UNLESS you or someone, contests,
controverts or proves otherwise. It
begins wholesale with predatory greed, and want of integrity by
courier firms and their suppliers, mainly the former, unless they
offer a tariff to the supp-liars to remedy any complaints and
exclude the courier from the overhead. Typically it begins with
the simple form like the Post Office, when they attempt to
deliver a parcel. Observing this conduct some years ago, after a
week of having small packets carded without delivery. I had
collected a few cards through the door, (at least there were
cards, mostly there is NO TRACE of
and waited the next morning. In came the card through the letter
box, NO ring or knock! I opened the door called the postman back
a few yards he had already nearly disappeared. I said, “Sorry
you were not at home” to him, and asked him if that was
true or false? “Oh, he rep-lied, (ignoratio elenchi, not
answering the question,) I don't have the parcel with me.”
“Why not”, “I don't like to carry the parcels
around with me in case nobody is at home but I will definitely
bring it tomorrow.” The conclusion is, that they prefer to
“NOT perform” their contract, and get the receiver to
either collect or take responsibility for the attempt. (Attempt =
futile endeavour OED.)
Because these 'standard cards' are delivered daily in thousands, the probability of their being rebuttabe is exceedingly HIGH, since there is NO thought given at all, to their (the notice) delivery. Often not even a notice is left, they just SAY so, and 'mouthing attempts' is NOT making deliveries to be quite certain.
Our sick, and sickening rebuttable presumption world of greedy corporations, totally lacking in integrity, and moral courage. Ethics? Forget it. Principles? Forget it. MONEY, AH now your talking! We don't mind failing, because we have great recitals of prepared template letters, you don't have the time to consider in your busy lives, and we can get away with THEFT (Theft Act?) Simply because you don't rebut!
What they will do to protect a mere £5-8,
because behind it all is a floodgate of thousands more, in
Ever received the all too common, rebuttable presumption conferring you with an AWARD that is sick semantic gibberish, and telling you what you KNOW to be FALSE?
Visual TimeAnalyzer click here.....
I have had it far too often. Predatory, greedy, companies do it, and when it comes to admitting, they write you the the ridiculous assertion below, the simplest form is the Post Office who put a card through the letter box that states;
“SORRY YOU were not at home”.
This happened once too often to me. I opened the door, and asked the postman to tell me to my face I was not at home, then tell me where was the parcel?
He 'clarified' it was at the depot, because he doesn't like carrying them when people are not at home, and I, disabled, was expected to trot over there depot, to do their work for them, and meantime feel guilty about it all.
Who are these guilty sick companies, Amtrak the first, whom I took to court to their costs of £1200, defending a refund under their own contract for £8. Why do they protect such trivia? Ah, well, at that time they were delivering 40,000 parcels monthly with a failure rate of 5% making 2000 deliveries refundable under their contract terms. That's why companies defend trivia, because they hide the gross plunder behind it. Defending a potential floodgate.
Royal Mail the next one, shown above, still putting the same cards through people's doors that 'they are not home,' because the delivery man is in too much of a hurry, or can't be bothered to carry more than two parcels.
In step U.P.S. United Parcels Services, and Wedgwood, TWO MIGHTY NAMES fighting in the mud over £4, with the worst semantic muck for a long time.
Wedgwood tells tells me what I know to be false, and they know to be a template, that “no receiver was available to sign.” When I take the issue up with Wedgwood, all the alerts go red, and guess what?
The “parcel experienced an exception.” (story coming shortly.)
Who ever heard of such drivel in speech in the last thousand years? ONLY rebuttable presumers telling falsehoods, simply because they lack the moral courage, and integrity to admit a fault and correct it.
Here is the way to corner these false representations that; in fact and deed, are well within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-5. All you have to do is show any rational person that you were working on your computer at the relevant time. NOT alone that.
The programme is a fabulous time analyser for billing work carried out with utter precision.
Try it, it's very inexpensive, and highly recommended.
Here is one simple picture from dozens you can get.
Look at the time details, and then ask your fraudulent presumer, how you managed to work the keyboard, in such detail.
Then ask him to admit you were not at home, or not available!
Ask him to prove his delivery in a similar way, then ask him to refund or expose him as the lowest kind of predatory puttock imaginable.
Here's the way to do it.
Simple, ask them to show how you were not at home, and all this keyboard activity took place.
You can't modify the reports as they stand.
See screen shots here.
A sample screen showing a minute by minute presence at the keyboard. NOW then, presumers, tell me how I did all this and was not at home, or else admit your system is deplorably opportunistic, and sick at the heart.
This program costs has a free edition, and then is less than £8 for the pro version. It shows the PC uptime for each day. Useful to show when you are in or out. Part of the tool kit to rebut those disgraceful rebuttable presumptions. Here....
Here is how to rebut a rebuttable presumption
that is believed by the deliverer, and known to be false by the
recipient. Line by line.
To Mr. James stringer.
Wedgwood.com Internet Manager
Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Ltd,
ST12 9ES England
Per fax..or..Email.. Please acknowledge this email, to avoid it being faxed as well.
Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:02:22
Not having received an acknowledgement email here is the fax, that will be tidied & further added in the public domain.
Mrs. Winter passed your letter to me late yesterday, that I was unaware of. I have been very pre-occupied with family bereavements and she didn't wish to vex me further, rightly so, since I regard your letter as anti-logical, unsound in reasoning, and inept in presentation for any arguments based on facts. After the preamble, you can read my reasoning, and see how it compares with yours regarded as untenable, uncorroborated, and inadmissible as it is, in any court other than one that is venal or irrational.
You make a number of assertions that are highly rebuttable, and to test them I suggest you address every sentence where there is a question mark, then append you signature to a witnessed document that argues from knowledge, then belief and leaves out your being satisfied, a subject of no interest having seen the manner of your arguments.
In paragraph 4. below you make the assertion concerning 'attempts' at delivery without backing them up. You also quietly overlook the actual and factual delivery date of the goods, from the U.P.S. Records as 4th of September. This is part of an age old art of 'suppressio veri' and 'suggestio falsi' in the function of 'appetition and aversion' in presenting a case that is craftily biased and selective, to reach a hasty generalisation that is utterly flawed unless you can rectify the matter in the ensuing admissions. Treat this as a notice to admit facts, under the standard form N266, and thereafter I suggest you refer the legal terminology to a competent person advising in law. This is very weakly handled by a person whose job function is called 'Internet manager' managing presumably web sites for the company, and cob-webs in legal detritus.
Here is a title your reply should begin with.
This statement (consisting of ? pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
You should bear in mind carefully the spirit of CPR 31.6 (b),(i),(ii), and particularly deal with any questions mindful of CPR 15,5,5. where a failure to deal with the issues and or allegations is 'accepted', meaning what I depose is true. You are invited to contest, controvert and prove otherwise with full candour befitting a person of integrity.
There is no need to concern yourself over the refund of £4, please keep it, this is now the issue that my previous letter informs your company of, I keep my promises, and is worth in my view £100 in PR. To ensure compliance with the EU HR Convention Protocol 5 Article 6, this will be fair, and public, allowing readers to make up their own minds on who is the truth seller and the truth teller. You have 7 days to acknowledge that you intend to contest the assertions, and corroborate what you depose, following which the exchanges shall be placed in the public domain without further notice. We don't need fair and public in this case to be in a small room. It will be fair and very public. Otherwise you can leave the matter as it is and do nothing that is your right.
There will follow three levels of interrogatives relating to the assertion in paragraph 4 below, the first of which is to first “please ask U.P.S. to corroborate their deposition that a driver came to any of the doors at the relevant delivery address, stating the time, day and precise location, he made these alleged 'attempts' and providing a short description of what he did showing the effectiveness of his 'attempts?' After that there will be several questions focussed on context, and then drawing the strands together, comparing them with my own testimony, and then you shall see how unambiguous contextual inferencing works in practice. All in all very brief questions, the first of which has been highlighted for your.
Second please state yourself, under the terms above A. State clearly whether you carried out any research to corroborate your assertions of 'attempts' or did you simply take if from inadmissible third level hearsay testimony please?
Third, state clearly how you calculate that a delivery (fact from U.P.S. records) on 4th September 2007, from a despatch date (fact from your statement 7th August for 7-10 days delivery) amount to roughly 29 days (inc / exc) makes up 7-10 day? I would like to see the calculations as you made them, this is fascinating.
Fourth, Please ask U.P.S. to put into plain English for the readers, what it means for a 'parcel to experience' anything, let alone an 'exception.' (fact from U.P.S. web tracking, see below 10.a.)
I suggest an answer here, purely a conjecture, that this means the parcel was focussed on, taken out of its normal transit opacity, and escalated to managerial level, where everyone was now looking at Wedgwood, and U.P.S. to see if their words on delivery 'Attempts' corresponded with facts. Mrs. Winter notified your staff that CCTV cameras were on the lookout as well as traders, and children, around the 3rd Inst, the first (apparently re-scheduled) alleged 'attempt' Suddenly the parcel experience an exception after this information was transmitted. This is also fascinating.
Failure to deal with these simple questions renders the 'position' you have 'outlined' admitted as either false or misleading representations, and untenable. I have in mind the meanings in Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-5. Compare the level of corroboration with a small insight in the manner in which I shall and can corroborate what I state, based on 3rd party facts not possible to manipulate since in the example given, the material sits on an external website run by Bt. Yahoo.
To elucidate the difference mentioned below, between knowledge and belief, and then your term 'satisfaction' If you know something, believing it is superfluous, trite and implies you don't know for sure. Believing something declares that lack of knowledge. Hence belief and knowledge are of two distinct disciplines. Satisfying yourself in such matters, has little to do with either, in is certainly nothing do do with proving things whatsoever.
Your invitation is now placed, and the matter stands now wherever you deem you are satisfied with doing the job thoroughly.
End of Preamble.
Therefore: With the utmost courtesy and respect, no personal derogation intended, I shall now traverse your recital and show you a mirror to your reasoning, that I do see, and you do not, since you fail to understand several basic principles. Excuse me if I am not merely irritated, but amused. I will take your letter and comment in sequence, with a few jumps internally to relate the reasoning system you use that is critically flawed and uncorroborated.
Think about it Maestro! If one wishes to swim the channel, and finds the water too cold at first touch, and before gaining a distance of 100 yards, giving up, then that is what an attempt looks like. Analogise it with attempting deliveries and you see you are talking in the subjunctive mood, with barely any imperceptible velleity, and it the attempt fails at he first 000.1 percent of the idea becoming a thought, declining to an unfulfilled wish. I wonder if you see that ?
Re: Wed, 13/8/08 24KB
Re: Wed, 13/8/08 2KB
Re: Wed, 13/8/08 24KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 15KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 13KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 10KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 48KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 9KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 47KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 44KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 44KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 13KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 8KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 3KB
Re: Tue, 12/8/08 5KB
RE: Mon, 11/8/08 16KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 446KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 121KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 7KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 4538KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 1696KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 117KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 345KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 16KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 2KB
Re: Mon, 11/8/08 2KB
See description below
Rescheduled Delivery: 09/04/2008
Shipped To: LONDON, GB
Shipped/Billed On: 08/29/2008
Weight: .80 Kg
In case you want to get your legal team to challenge this, first corroborate what you say, and contest and prove what I say is otherwise. Then show me how you add up.
Just in case I need to say it, I am making these comments under the EU HR Convention Protocol 5 article 10.
If you do replie, please try to connect your ideas and thoughts logically where the English is comprehensible AND most importantly corresponds with facts, you ought to know what they are by now. They don't grow in appearances or foolish conjectures, but reality for sure.
Special apologies for spelling errors some terms I tend to get wrongly spelt. Also for any syntax or typos, this is not the best time for me to deal with your letter.
Yours most respectfully, and courteously.
A. H. Winter.
Josiah Wedgwood Ltd.
Mr A H Winter
10th September 2008
Ref: Order placed on 7th August 2008 Dear Mr Winter
Thank you for taking the time to write to us in relation to your concerns regarding the delivery of an order placed by Mrs M C Winter. Although there is privity of contract and we have no confirmation in writing from Mrs Winter that she has requested you to handle this matter on her behalf, I felt it would be courteous to respond outlining our position on this matter.
We use UPS across our global business as they provide a cost effective and reliable service to our customers. In this instance the order was placed on 7th August and UPS made three attempts to deliver the items on 11th, 12`h and 13th August, all within our 7-10 day delivery promise. Unfortunately, no one was available to take delivery of the order and we have subsequently successfully delivered the order at no additional cost to Mrs Winter.
As a result, we are unable to refund the cost of delivery (£4) or any additional costs.
I hope you will understand our reasoning in this matter and we are confident that we have satisfied our legal obligations.
Via - United Parcel Service
Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Ltd, Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent ST12 9ES England Telephone: UK 0845