Why do we not see any threads about peoples actual court appearances?

WiSC

pedalpower wrote: »

I posted that so that somebody doesn't try and accuse me of hiding it, arousing more suspicion.

Well personally I'm very suspicious of you and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you were to post in a few weeks/months telling us you went to court and PE won. I hope you prove me wrong but something just seems off. . .

pedalpower

WiSC wrote: »

Well personally I'm very suspicious of you and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you were to post in a few weeks/months telling us you went to court and PE won. I hope you prove me wrong but something just seems off. . .

For a start that could easily be proved/disproved couldn't it.

Here's an offer for you, lets see how suspicious you are. I'm willing to send someone we both trust on here all my details. If you can prove that anything I say on here is false or that I have anything to do with PE I'll pay £1,000 to a charity of your choice. You do the same should you be proved wrong. Still suspicious? Then take me up on it...

Looksguywalker

WiSC wrote: »

Well personally I'm very suspicious of you and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you were to post in a few weeks/months telling us you went to court and PE won. I hope you prove me wrong but something just seems off. . .

I'm suspicious of someone who joined MSE two days ago and starts out throwing accusations around. Classic misdirection perhaps?

WiSC

pedalpower wrote: »

For a start that could easily be proved/disproved couldn't it.

Here's an offer for you, lets see how suspicious you are. I'm willing to send someone we both trust on here all my details. If you can prove that anything I say on here is false or that I have anything to do with PE I'll pay £1,000 to a charity of your choice. You do the same should you be proved wrong. Still suspicious? Then take me up on it...

I'm not here to investigate you, I have better things to do - just highlighting my suspicions over you - your posts and actions on here will be proof enough.

WiSC

Looksguywalker wrote: »

I'm suspicious of someone who joined MSE two days ago and starts out throwing accusations around. Classic misdirection perhaps?

Well I'm not new exactly new here , but certainly no veteran, and have been open and helpful with my true account. However as the wrong eyes scour these forums I'll only post my court case verdict (if it gets that far) with actual account loaded with all the case details. Until then I shall be the Wolf in Sheeps Clothing fighting the good fight.

And for what its worth why would a PE mole offer to quantify someone's botched landscaping job? Post history is a useful tool ;-)

pedalpower

WiSC wrote: »

Well I'm not new exactly new here , but certainly no veteran, and have been open and helpful with my true account. However as the wrong eyes scour these forums I'll only post my court case verdict (if it gets that far) with actual account loaded with all the case details. Until then I shall be the Wolf in Sheeps Clothing fighting the good fight.

So you're saying your still suspicious but you haven't got the bottle to take me up on my offer?

WiSC

pedalpower wrote: »

So you're saying your still suspicious but you haven't got the bottle to take me up on my offer?

Yes I'm mildly suspicious of you and I don't feel the need for an odd online challenge. As I said, your posts etc on here will be proof enough.

halibut2209

Edit: forget that

spacey2012

The right of audience is different when acting as an agent, a litigant in person can use a lay person or representative but a company can not.
However the defendant has to make the challenge when asked if they are willing to proceed.

Also as they are providing fake statements in court bundles the defendant needs to request the hearing is adjourned and this "whoever" has signed this statement is brought to court along with the document or contract they are referring along with all parties who signed it to testify or affidavit to its authenticity or request the evidence be removed as unsubstantiated .
If that evidence is removed because the who ever signed this statement referring to this contract is not present, they have no right of audience, back to square 1.

This is hard for some people to take in, but these are your basic rights of justice as a defendant, the old defence jumps in way to high in to POFA territory .
I also take it you will be asking them to provide the VCA (Vehicle certification agency)certificate for the ANPR camera as VCA is seen as the minimum standard for ANPR evidence in a court of law.
they may have a nice picture of your car but can they prove the time and date are reliable and accurate with a format allowed.
I know for a fact they can not.
You are not denying you may have at sometime owned a vehicle which was in the car park, they are the ones alleging the timings, challenge the lack of VCA, show how local councils must comply to the judge.

This is the new defence IMO :
Right of audience and evidential standards of using non VCA cameras.
Have the unlawful penalty up the sleeve, but go in much lower and much harder
Just one win on either point and they are finished for good.

pedalpower

WiSC wrote: »

Yes I'm mildly suspicious of you and I don't feel the need for an odd online challenge. As I said, your posts etc on here will be proof enough.

Why's it odd? You just know that if you accept you're going to lose. You don't want to lose face, back down and admit you're wrong.