I/B stopped.............help

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

You are only talking about YOUR case, this does not happen to EVERYONE. The vast majority of people have a fair hearing.

You are clearly not objective or well reasoned as you have proved in this thread and many other times on this forum.

I know about errors in law.

1. You cannot admit you are wrong about claimants being around 25% more likely to fail.

2. You cannot admit that these are *systemic* errors e.g. it means the ITS chairman is biased and even acts on behalf of the opposition i.e. this biase happens to EVERYONE - because the chairman will err on the side of their "friend of the court" DWP.

3. You cannot admit that even though the claimant should have won because the facts of the case were wrong - they will have lost because there was no error in law.

Methinks you should reevaluate your own objectivity - you cannot admit to have been shown to be wrong

BTW: Did you know there is even a rule that the AO's cannot admit they are wrong - they have to say "I agree" or, "I do not dispute" or a similar phrase should be used.

NASA_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

You don't believe documentary proof (e.g. from FSA) because it doesn't conform to your own little world view - what a sad person you are

Actually, the FSA one was the one I gave you credit for (Not in any post), I fully believe that financial institutions and their ineffective FSA would !!!! people over.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

1. You cannot admit you are wrong about claimants being around 25% more likely to fail.

2. You cannot admit that these are *systemic* errors e.g. it means the ITS chairman is biased and even acts on behalf of the opposition i.e. this biase happens to EVERYONE - because the chairman will err on the side of their "friend of the court" DWP.

3. You cannot admit that even though the claimant should have won because the facts of the case were wrong - they will have lost because there was no error in law.

Methinks you should reevaluate your own objectivity - you cannot admit to have been shown to be wrong

BTW: Did you know there is even a rule that the AO's cannot admit they are wrong - they have to say "I agree" or, "I do not dispute" or a similar phrase should be used.

You are wrong there are not systemic errors. They are not biased to the P.O. This does NOT happen for everyone. You are wrong, I have nothing to admit to because I am correct. It does not matter how many times you say the same thing it will never make you correct.

I have already answered the rest I am not going to keep repeating myself. Look up errors of law and read about them and then you might understand.

I will not admit I am wrong because I am not wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

Please get some help.

welshmoneylover

Where's the OP gone to?

healy

welshmoneylover wrote: »

Where's the OP gone to?

Probably died of boredom!

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

You are wrong there are not systemic errors.

People can see you avoid answering questions e.g. about you being wrong with claimants 25% more likely to fail in the tribunal.

Nobody would believe that a chairman whose job it is to act on behalf of the opposition DWP if they don't turn up is at all impartial.

Would you trust a judge who was also the prosecution to give you a fair trial - of course you wouldn't - you would be a mug to do so.

Fact: tribunals are systemically flawed for this and other reasons.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

People can see you avoid answering questions e.g. about you being wrong with claimants 25% more likely to fail in the tribunal.

Nobody would believe that a chairman whose job it is to act on behalf of the opposition DWP if they don't turn up is at all impartial.

Would you trust a judge who was also the prosecution to give you a fair trial - of course you wouldn't - you would be a mug to do so.

Fact: tribunals are systemically flawed for this and other reasons.

The chairman is impartial, they do not act on behalf of the DWP if they so not turn up, that is not their job. That is a fact. You are talking rubbish.

They are not the prosecution, you are completely wrong.

Tribunals are not systemically flawed.

NASA_2

Does a Judge do a summation of evidence at a criminal trial?

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

The chairman is impartial, they do not act on behalf of the DWP if they so not turn up, that is not their job. That is a fact. You are talking rubbish.

They are not the prosecution, you are completely wrong.

Tribunals are not systemically flawed.

Nope - the *fact* of the matter is that the chairman did the job of DWP and even made excuses for them not being there - busy, heavy workload etc.

The DWP act as Plaintiffs - in opposition.

Garry_Anderson

ESA wrote: »

Does a Judge do a summation of evidence at a criminal trial?

Err.. didn't you know that summation isn't the same as acting as the prosecution or plaintiff?