It's quite ok. But a suggestion. 'Sorry if advising is seen as 'campaigning' ' IS not a translation of: I commenced with: “I am publishing a complete exposure” _______________ 'you can't beat npower they are the state now' the objective is not to beat them, but NOT BE BEATEN BY THEM, they are predators NO DOUBT. __________________ 'Best just limit damage.' YES, to oneself. There is not enough anger in the population at large, because the PR, = spin doctor is an antonym of the fact in performance which is ACTUALLY= semantic butchery FRAUDULENTLY: conceived at a genetic modification level, so many cannot apprehend what enters below the limen -- sublimenal.

HI, I hope this might help you, I am publishing a complete exposure of these people, I have challenged the CFO CEO and Directors, on alleged offences, FRAUD Act s2,3,4,12, and Data Protect6ion among others. ALL admitted by silence and NOT controverted by any DISCLOSURE under the Fraud Act. They threatened to close my electricity, and I asked them to DO SO immediately, provide me with the 2 week Human Rights Letter, and THEN have the board directors meet me in court for cross examination. Suddenly THEY are not so eager. I have invoiced them now for ten breaches of the Data protection Act, £50,000, to help them focus on truth, an IDEA they don't understand, all their arguments are fiction. 100 pages of exposure all being released... Here is the lead in, and link below text. Are you fed up with spin and rhetoric from SPINsters, properly labelled semantic butchers? Npower and previously others, tried to commit fraud with me in January 2012. They alleged I owed them about £3800 backdated to 2007, obviously contradicting all their bills for 5 years. The lead in started with 'we will write off £3000' please pay the remainder of about £800, (to give me relief and make me happy to pay the remainder) I said you will have to prove it all, then they reduced it by £300. I examined their evidence and told them it was far too obviously vague, After another exchange they wrote of all of it, and said they would pay £50 into my account as a gesture of goodwill. SOON after they tried the same approach again, backdating £800. By then I said SHOW me an agreement where I indemnified YOU for gross negligence and incompetence, OF COURSE there was none... NOTHING but SILENCE IN responses OED ' a reaction to a stimulus ' They never answer a direct question merely use the obvious rhetorical device known as anthypophora, answering a question NOBODY asked. MADE up in their minds. VERY MUCH LIKE: Q. Did you take cash for honours? --- A. there was no wrongdoing. TO which one should say, THANK YOU clever children, that answers the question: was there wrongdoing? TRY and focus on my question. I will make it easier for you... DID you receive £400, your proper wages, in your pay packet? (knowing there was £500. to which there is a standard Diamond's answer: I was not aware.... Looking over the pay packet and over looking its contents. Corporate amnesia games for ten year old children? I warned them to withdraw, and they cancelled a purported & alleged debt the result of 'an error' see that little word, backdated 5 years, just the one little error, and that letter they sent me, went out to thousands, which in like parallel means tens of thousands. So by my calculation that may be in the region of several hundred thousands of little errors, all because each year allegedly the meter readers could not count the number of dials correctly. Along with my own FULL 7 dial readings... Clever? When I stopped paying them I asked a simple question: PROVIDE ME with your sort code and account number, presented in copied letters to the BOARD directors many times over. THEY could not understand that simple question... Shakespeare called it...some 400 years ago. Your sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant Or seem so, craftily; and that's not good. I have challenged them all on Fraud sections 2,3,4,12, and they have tacitly admitted, AND failed to controvert by DISCLOSURE s3, a mere 49 plus breaches, of some 100 plus. The direct link is here... http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fraud.html or the main menu – top link – has several links here.. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/ or type the usual format http etc logiclaw.co.uk I will post more this is just the start of 100 pages of undisputed allegations. ALL FREE... OR GOOGLE two words... logic law you should find me at number 1 in 200 million. My last email to them Notification Offence DPA and CRIMINAL OFFENCES REBUTTAL REQUIRED Currently over 50 ADMIT and DISCLOSE under here Fraud Act, all taken as admitted under CPR, and not a shred of any controverting evidence. ALL their arguments are GAMES. The index section can be downloaded here or on th link below. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/np6web1.pdf Otherwise all admitted under CPR 16.5 Best regards to all. fraud...........

lamma You can go further... Have a small vado camera fitted to the front windscreen on two velcro squares, as you travel. Always on. (£45 from argos) takes up to 2 hrs video of what is happening in front of you. If we move slowly towards despotism, as it looks, you may need these things the same as they do, that is called in law, equality of arms. Just a comment. Crem See CPR 75, TEC is a DEEMED court, with officers ACTING as court officers, and, here's the smart bit, it is a registration POINT. Get the point? A point in space time eh? The centre 75.2 (1) Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre. (2) For any purpose connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions – (a) the Centre is deemed to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and (b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of that court. ACTING is the polysemous word that can be interpreted in ANY sense you like. They have fun with words! Functions of court officer 75.5 (1) The practice direction supplementing this Part sets out the circumstances in which a court officer may exercise the functions of the court. Review of decision of court officer 75.5A (1)Any party may request any decision of a court officer to be reviewed by a district judge. (2) Such a request must be made within 14 days of service of the decision. (3) Unless – (a) the party requesting the review requests an oral hearing; or (b) the court orders an oral hearing, a request for a review under paragraph (2) will be dealt with without an oral hearing.

We wondered what happened... Don't pay it. It all begins way back from the FIRST POINT. The ab initio. From which NO financial liability occurs. Definition below. Treat it as the empty threat it IS. If they try it on, a High Court action is the only way. There are two I am aware of on such issues, one involves a government official... There is also one on its way to several courts. Alleging -- with hundreds of pages of corroboration, FRAUD and Harassment. JUST the usual -- A suggestion. What they do is send pages of semantic muck that are anti-logical. One case with a major player in Central London, had a 3 page package of mental derangements, that took 30 pages to take out. Silence AND of course cancellation followed. The spin comes from central think tanks who haven't learned that the delirious semantics are so obvious they are logical fallacies. The word games are afoot, and they are very inexpert at it. DID you get asked for 2000 extra troops? We discussed some increase to 10,000. Thank you, that answers the question "did you discuss some increase to about 10,000" NOT what was asked. School children lose their exams with such attemps at 'Ignoratio Elenchi fallacies.' Definition below. Soon we will be ruled by people who deliver despotism in small mental traumas of semantic bundles like rubric cubes. Never mind, my views are from a minority so I must be wrong. See the logic? Might is right? Certainly not! Ab Initio Latin: from the start; from the beginning. A proposition in law that a court's jurisdiction, a certain document which purports to affect legal rights, or an act which purports to affect legal rights, is or was nul and void from the start, from its beginning, because of some vitiating element. Typically, documents or acts which are ab initio cannot be fixed and where jurisdiction, a document or an act is so declared at law to be void ab initio, the parties are returned to their respective positions at the time of the ab initio event. That last sentence should be re-phrased.... NOT unless the law courts are UPRIGHT and TRULY independent eh? The difference between judge brought in, or as in this case brought in. Sorry about the apparent spelling mistake, if you highlight the word it is clearer what it is and SHOULD be. Ignoration of the Elench, = a rare anglicized repr. of the more usual Scholastic Latin ignoratio elenchi (gnre lka), a logical fallacy which consists in apparently refuting an opponent, while actually disproving some statement different from that advanced by him; also extended to any argument which is really irrelevant to its professed purpose. OED.

Scan the PATAS register, and you will see wholesale case law, with batches where some adjudicators RULE one way, and others FOOL the other, so invariably one gets a list of contrarieties, that enables the sharp shooter to select those to his best advantage. There is a short list for you to download here, that shows the high court ruling, split down the middle for choosers and losers. Logic Reasoning Thought Laws

This needs updating also...? Scan the PATAS register, and you will see wholesale case law, with batches where some adjudicators RULE one way, and others FOOL the other, so invariably one gets a list of contrarieties, that enables the sharp shooter to select those to his best advantage. They of course reLIE on ignorance, remember "ignorance of the law is no excuse!" But overlook their Hippo-critic Oath... "Knowledge of the law forbits its abuse!"

Like to keep the combat going as a point scorer do you? Scan the PATAS register, and you will see wholesale case law, with batches where some adjudicators RULE one way, and others FOOL the other, so invariably one gets a list of contrarieties, that enables the sharp shooter to select those to his best advantage. Councils have earned the name of beings certainly sharp shooters due to the amount of fraud they accomplish and palliate with NLP & Spin. If you need an example then try reading this...muck as an example of spin completely out of control.http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/aaahhh.html After reading it, I am sure your sympathies will go out to the hard pushed councils who are finding it more difficult to COIN in phrases to win. Case law at PATAS fails to appLIE consistently, surely everybody and particularly YOU know that. And that NLP is rife on the side of the councils and SPINsters. Truth and falsity are the rules; and have been since 2500 yrs ago, rulings are often foolings, as a reasoning person knows. People - throw things out, daily, does not mean that they ONLY throw out the rubbish, many a good diamond and sound rule is found by looking at the things thrown out. The particulars of the case are not of gerat import, the reasoning process is what counts, and it is a very hard search to find a properly reasoned argument.

---- G&M, playing his semantics yet again, did you take a common purpose training course or simply become a counc-ill-or? What?---- ---- Blue Badge abuse is a criminal offence and could result in Councils sharing data. -------- If anyone is clutching at straws its you in trying to win an argument, I am just stating fact,---- APPLAUSE! Here are some other facts, that you overlooked! It is a criminal offence to commit fraud, and many councils do precisely that. It is an offence to harass, for a false allegation, many councils do precise that. It is a criminal offence to perjure oneself in a 'caught', 'court' and many councils do precisely that! Want any more facts? The list is endless for COUNCILS.

Yes, but Wayne P, John oh, and another have clarified that you are talking to NPC Service Ltd, and not TfL you may find that interesting?

Have a look here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/178369-thoughts-man-dies-during.html Murder by stress, is now called duress. NOT SUSPICIOUS EH? When will someone get angry and DO something, lawfully not awfully, these are fellow citizens.. hard working family people like YOU and ME. More here, and coming... indx It could be coming to your family

It's a complete and utter disgrace.Councils KNOW the duress they put people under, we were better of with being criminals with 3 points than this...Look here. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/waynefine.html Councils want their £50 no matter how many lives they take.That's how disgusting it is.Then see how it is on the INSIDE of this pure evil... Council officer threw himself off 100ft bridge after becoming depressed with authority's 'immoral' involving 'huge amounts' of taxpayer's money, an inquest heard. Council officer threw himself off 100ft bridge after becoming depressed with authority's 'immoral' decisions | Mail Online There could be civil war in this country if this MURDER by stress goes on... I forgot this one...Daily Express TODAY's 'GRATE' BRITAIN, Thank you PMs for setting an example and leading Britain by example, away from spin. By Frederick Forsyth Have your say(0) I READ with disgust that a 61-year-old grandmother, hounded to sheer despair by debt collectors who claimed she owed nearly £16,000, finally ended her misery through suicide. Then it was discovered that the pursuing bank had got the wrong name and address. The real debtor was male and lived 200 miles away. Computer error, sorreeeee. Read full article.. Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: Columnists :: Put a stop to corporate bullies

--- I thought there was a remedy; prosecution under the fraud act would be a good start. Clearly the fraud act only applies to the peasants, not the apparachiks of Nu Labour and their partners in the 'blue' guard. BANG ON TARGET as usual....your aim is gold every time... It's an uncivil remedy. here at index Try throwing that lot at them. Camden went of SMARTING with £4000 costs. The claimant warned them NEXT TIME £1,000,000, AND filed it with the Judge. BTW still to come on that one, the court gave the claimant possession of the TOWN HALL, worth about £70 million? It all cost him nothing, but he lost 3 stone in the rattle. There's another brave person also going at TfL with an £1?.? million claim, the judges semantics in correlative adverbial pairs were awful. He couldn't balance them as in 'scales of justice'. What was worse is the BWMAN case here, the Judge bought in; oops sorry, dyslexia attack, and I mis - spell was the worst seen in a lifetime. Talk about councils compromising the integrity of everything they touch... SORRY that word was spelt wrong....compromising Should be COME PROMISING INTEGRITY! like all these visionaries that make the public mental health bill rise into billions and sicken us all.

---what does it take to change things? --- EASY There is no specific remedy { note the sighs of relief all around } in legislation for this, CREATE a remedy in legislation, these are the people in power, stop saying things like, (suggestions, and encouragement) and start DOING. { OH GOD... NO!! }After all he is talking in the Lords where these upright JUSTICERS en--act the laws. All the subliminals, highlighted above, that are adjuncts to the head words, that deliver the THOUGHT forms to satisfy appetite, but since they are FRAMED as thought forms dull the edge of resolve. It means upsetting a few people rather than the WHOLE population, that's all. It may mean postponing that move to the appelate bench. ELECTION? both main parties are probably well into 'common purpose' we need a move to the manic party to shake them, and to straighten some of the uncivil servants Mention those two words and watch the silence that you can CUT. “The BPA seeks a PCN defined by Statute plus bilateral proportionality” WHERE do I seek please?—The 'seeking' rooms 1st door left sir! Any HIDE and SEEK rooms? Yes sir, ALL the remainder of the rooms. Any bilateral proportionality rooms? Sorry sir that's too much of a mouthfull for me, you must seek a legal adviser.

John OH! that's a great inspiration for all. As I think we are of like thoughts, and this is his speech, permit me please to disambiguate just a very very little. It's terrific visionary material. I wonder if many readers see how it shall: as Angelo says to Isa Bella; “Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes That banish what they sue for; ”Look at the keywords that acts a touchstones to the subconscious minds, delivering palliation to the appetite for justice and proper retribution. { And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry } The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests that authorities should be made to refund any penalty charges paid when enforcement action has been taken when the local authority knows [ comment here, pretend ignorance ] from previous adjudication decisions that the relevant traffic signs are faulty [ prefer not prescribed] . { But this is where it gets tricky and sticky....} The Government have encouraged { AHH got it, go to the encouragemen rooms down the corridor, the ones with padded walls to keep the noise from getting out while you get put through the semantic mangler } local authorities to do this, but it is a local decision. If (conditional – often contrary to fact) the authority has taken enforcement action { NO we don't do that! we simply AWARD penalties they're not fines, do you recall Justice Jackson to Robin at the High Court, do you? ] when the provisions in place are not lawful, [ prefer outrageously and unjustly outlawed ] it may[ thinking in the optative mood? ] , be in breach of its statutory duty. There is no specific remedy { note the sighs of relief all around } in legislation for this, but a claimant may [ again wishful, especially when judicial reviews get refused without even a hearing ] be able to bring a civil action against the local authority for breach of statutory duty.The Audit Commission has the ability [ OH really! so we don't? ] to scrutinise {screw timorise --- AAHH just that eh? }a local authority’s parking management performance, and has published { Ooohh great, making money out of publishing books too, or simply spending revenue to inform the public what they can see and know. } a number of inspection reports on individual councils’ parking services. Concerns may also be referred to the district auditor, who acts {just acts eh? Aren't those actors, people that play in the theatre?} as watchdog of public finance. { to allow councils to take it, keep it and watch it, not return it } Any way,never mind, so long as they remain CONCERNS, they're still LOVELY!. Such fun with semantics in indirect narration, third person, subjunctive moods thought forms. On an more direct note, I met him in a HOL, meeting with the Westminster chief of barking- sorry parking. HE IS very charming and doing a very difficult job of SPEAKING UP! SORRY about all the spellos,I ain't at one of my better moments

--- you have to pay for a 'trial', or for someone who doesn't directly benefit to decide about it, on limited grounds, no discretion allowed.--- Trials are in justice centres, you can question freely under oath. Hearings vary, some allow a question under sufferance, (yeeeesss uttered in a slow rising tone, from bass baritone to alto or castrati, depending on the sonority and gender, with emphasis on the last consonents) Now in the OFT, they state in their glossy self acclaimer, you cannot ask the question 'WHY' as if there aren't other easy ways of asking the same question. I need to qualify this. --- When Peter fights Paul, courts have reasonable integrity, it's when it comes to anybody v .gov.uk, that's when the fun d begins... ALL open and transparent of course... Many hearings are learings and snearings.Who benefits, AH! Since PATAS are independent, (from their adjudy's) it sounds nice to the ear of the undiscerning. BUT adjudictators are paid by..... guessed it yet?... NO! 'The joint committee of councils'. Who are they, AH, no secret really. they are the people who punish for trivia, trivialise their own offences, and then pay their own independant (from PATAS) 'solicitors' to act as judge, barrister and jury in YOUR case learing, oops clumsy of me, hearing. Hence their REAL independence has to be of some other kind, religious independence, political interdependence, or even parental indepen-dance. Ultimately it's all about scrabble, they play scrabble for money, and you play scrabble for the meaings in 'sense and references' of the words (Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell). The objective is to give you FARE justice, that's fare paying injustice of course. BTW --- Oh, and they don't do refunds --- IS what they SAY, but surely by now, you KNOW that what they DO is nothing that correlates with what they say.Someone here got one...and I am aware of others, but SHH keep it a secret. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/GLAMayor.html#admit Sorry about the spello's, just a few comments. It's just a bit of light hearted saturday fun for semantic players.

While it is slightly off subject, it still relates to Transport for London, and their methodology. Steve has contributed to a site showing PATAS cases where the rule that 'entering and stopping' is REFUTED, controverted & proved otherwise as the contravention for box junctions, IT IS SHOWN to NOT be that, due to the proper literal interpretation of statute, and several PATAS rulings upheld at appeal. There are arguments, that step outside the legal wording in statute, and these have been examined and shown not only to be contrary to the statutory purposes and wording, but also contrary to PATAS ruling. I am not in a position to comment further, since it is not my own material, but it is enlightening,and more is coming, that I have been observer to. I thought it might be of interest to the purposes of Justice to mention it. Probably merits a thread of its own. The link is:newpage

Orwel? Probably, but more likely from Matrix 1 & 2, and the notion of creating a 'cy-Borg society' from Star trek. Menu Suggestions: Edward Louis Bernays: considered one of the fathers of the field of public relations ….. on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the subconscious. Neuro Linguistic Programming Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Bildeberg group, Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The 'power' picture is partly assembled in century of the self The Century of the Self -* Part 1 Century Of The Self - Part 1 of 4 - By Adam Curtis This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control 'the dangerous crowd' in an age of mass democracy. - Adam Curtis Common Purpose UK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And then all the linguistic forms of persuasions possible, that get dished out from 'think tanks – charities' Brown – Balls ring any bells. Just perhaps an alternative to lighten the burden one night instead of, either 'make over face lifts, that are controlled accidents in surgeries, or the weather report, almost as bad as the news that is more fiction than fact...or indeed & why not a whole evening of adverts that beat the brain into submission to buy one get one free, or buy two and get a third, so long as one BUYs something, that makes one obese, and then needs the surgery. Actually, better still, from As Good as it gets, why not listen to them describing the water for us, as we are all drowning in it.

You are getting warmer, Accurate to a pinhead....You're very very good John-Oh! They know and / or should know that the smell of incense in mendacity and legal 'dafting' is now higher than before. BUT beware, the forces of reaction are at work. Judges are bought in, oops how clumsy of me, brought in sorry. Special semantic teams of 2 year olds from universities are trying everything in the book, on word derivation to heighten the valency and arity, combined with false emphasis, word prominence, anacolutha and ellipses to achieve the goal of mastery of people's minds by... think about it.... grammar. so that grammar despite being anti-logical, dominates and where it is so utterly fallacious and anti-logical they will commit to any fallacy to protect public revenue.... FOR.....(yes you have it) the public? Funny they always leave that qualifier out. Not a bit, FROM the public... creating the caret and ellipse in dropped ideas like... getting their money back. Are we on the same wavelength yet? --- Look, he's winding up the watch of his wit, by and by it will strike--- Tempest Shakespeare. Not for tourists! ('from Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief') Watch how they hurry in some incompatibility with the EUHR Protocol 5 Article 10 on freedom to express ideas next.. Apologies for all those spelling errors!

We then discussed the scenario of my putting in an out of time application and it being pretty automatically rejected by a 'court officer' for a reason that wouldn't be disclosed, so difficult to ask a judge to 'review'. And that it would cost me £75 to apply for a review of a decision made for an undisclosed reason. --- The reasons are invariably if not ALWAYS, REFUSED due to the NCC not being an appropriate court etc. YOU WERE told here.... http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html#3flaws Read it perhaps but didn't mark it...!

A-GREED! But where Revenue is placed ahead of justice...and ...ink tank semantics interferes with the 'separation of powers' However, and often, especially adjudictators who have un Civil Procedure Rules CPR, and Arbitrary Procedures Rule(s) for fools --- APR (50%); they often make the gamble like a Russian roulette, so that CPR 1.4 The court must FURTHER the overriding objective by actively managing cases. Becomes This 'caught' must override furthering the objective by passively managing cases. Just go in and watch as a bystander, how JUST is just.

Fair-parking, you are right! Accurate and precise, but some way to go yet on full discovery and full disclosure. A small group have questioned TEC some 6-9 mths ago. They asked them in the way rebuttable presumptions are asked, and they of course reLIED on the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I can't participate too much here, some in the forum have a bias that is very obvious. I can say, that one keyword in their responses told me all we need to know. We are satisfied the reason for putting prices on appeals shortly after that was due to the close proximity we had reached in disambiguating their high word arity semantics. They were concerned about a floodgate.Namely they seal batches of documents only. This is coming as I said on http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html#item7 which is the commencement of the semantic primer debriefing. If one can't understand those short paras, then it's simply a waste of time stating it here. Its too sensitve.

Originally Posted by johno1066 --- For the benefit of G&M, let's put it this way, traffic Wardens did not hold Warrant Cards and did not have the function of the Police Officer yet they were under the umbrella of the Police Service, if they attempted to pass themselves off as sworn Police Officers then they would be committing an Offence as would anybody else who impersonated a Police Officer. My Cousin works at CTCRM (Commando Training Centre Royal Marines), yet he is not a Commando. starting to get the picture now???... green_and_mean This is getting funnier by the minute!! What are you actually trying to argue with silly stories of commandos that has nothing to do with this? ... 'funnier by the minute' YES it is! Fallacy of 'ignoratio elenchi' -- irrelevant thesis... Also 'selection bias' with 'suppressio veri and suggestio falsi'. All combined to make the fallacy of 'ad nauseum', repeating oneself with the same inconsistent forms of arguments that lack cohesion. The argue...meant / point is to make an analogy my dear sir! or “Sunshine” to quote John01066 Ever heard of an analogy??? OED. Equivalency or likeness of relations. Traffic wardens are now being called CEO's Civil enforcement office-rs. And staff in councils, are now being called “correspondence office-rs. ”People who play football are caller players, people who play cricket are called cricketers, and people who PLAY IN OFFICES are called OFFICE-RS' ANALOGY SIR! Got it? They emphasise the first two syllables..., and let the rest simply 'up the arity' to deliver ambiguity. Try it! It's called semantic MUCK! played out by 6 year olds just out of university and newly recruited to ...ink tanks. Replace the three dots with any combination of consonants you like, -- to play with the words as they do. Just to put their icing on their cake, they now call PCN's, ---- penalties --- Wait for it.... YES you guessed right....AWARDS With respect, courtesy, and apologies for the numerous spelling errors. And BTW.... G & M... 'there is no other legal way of registering such a debt.' Fascinating! Why not try this way... TEC's VERY OWN WORDS, coming soon at exposures above... Traffic Enforcement Centre, Mrs Spooner, and others... - stated 3 times, Please note that the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) (1) is a registration point. Get their point?

Another exposure here on county 'caughts'. This one is well worth a read. TEC, the 'deemed court' that replies 'We are a registration point!' Get the point? http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html#item7 TEC, the three flaws that make all warrants since 2002, in breach of CPR on revoked orders. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html#3flaws From here... http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html Might be too difficult for some but never mind! Sorry about spelling mis takes

G&M first statement. ----The TEC ---- is ---- a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really. ---- G&M second statement. ----As Medusa kindly quoted above the TEC ---- is a part of ---- the County Court system.---- Dear oh Dear! You take my quote, as if it is the same as yours. You DO think that Red IS Pink don't you? That [ IS ] is the same as [ is a part of ]. Fallacy of division, the whole is equal to the part, Tomatoes are red. So the pips inside are also red. or fallacy of composition, the part is the same as the whole. These two tools are blunt. The whole box of tools must be blunt. Full alphabetic list of Fallacies Suggestion, if you ask your boss, the minister of semantic aviation, to build the next air plane on technology that DEEMS to be 10,000th inch tolerance BUT IS 1000th inch tolerance, THEN YOU test pilot it, and come back after to tell us the story, either wearing white wings, or those they have in the place below. Last person that tried that said he was paraphrasing just like you. The three laws of thought obviously aren't in your thoughts. He went on to say, I didn't mean that. And forgot Omar Khayyam. The moving finger writes... etc... ---- GM ---- IF you actually read my post ---- There was no need, the above was MORE than enough. BUT never mind, the point clearly went 'overhead'.

G&M ---- 'The TEC is a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really.' ---- TRY and get it right at least ONCE please! Fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) ASSUMING TEC is a court, when it is certainly NOT. THEN arguing on a FALSE CAUSE assumptive from there onwards... PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT Emphasis is mine in upper-case The centre75.2(1) Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre. (2) For ANY PURPOSE connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions –(a) the Centre is DEEMED to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and (b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is DEEMED to act as an officer of that court. JUST LIKE 98 is DEEMED to be 100 in their and your world. Next steps ---- 'You need to pay the penalty charge.' ---- Next steps, You need pills to read and see straight. Oh dear, just forget it!