Members of Tribunal removed main document from case causing delays & expenses - expense claim

[Deleted User]

Waaaaay back on page one of this thread I told the Op that, mostly since he didn't have a Consumer Rights issue, he would not get the help he appeared to require here. 

I'd also taken a look at his posting history prior to stating that. 

Since then the thread has "advanced" for page after page but with no discernible advancement in the discussion.  

Respondents here are having their legs pulled. Do not feed. 

waamo

This thread could go on for Decades. As above it's starting to become an Atrocity Exhibition. I hope the Transmission doesn't end.

Faith177

Anyone else feeling sorry for the police officer who had to receive his emails 

MoneySavingNovice

Faith177 said:

Anyone else feeling sorry for the police officer who had to receive his emails 

Not to forget the court who received his 'dossier'.  What about the solicitor who 'didn't answer accurately to (his) questions'.  Or anyone who has tried to offer help and support here.

All this said I do have some sympathy for ‘Peter Hook’ as I think I have an idea of how he has gotten himself into this situation.  Clearly, I don’t know and even if I’m entirely correct I’m sure that he will deny this and fail to recognise any validity of this.  But here is my amateur supposition, or in Peters words my attempt to '... make an effort...Be a minimum brave to say the truth at least virtually..." :-

1)      In my view the based upon the information here and the fact that the police investigated, I think that Peter was assaulted as he stated and thus was legitimately able to make a CICA claim.

2)      A police officer was assigned to the case and started investigation.  Given Peters track record here for not answering, avoiding or simply not understanding the question raised as well as making unsubstantiated accusations the investigating officer concluded that Peter was not cooperating and thus closed the investigation without gaining the evidence needed for the CICA claim.

3)      Peter feeling aggrieved at this pulled together a dossier including the email exchanges with the police and I’m sure other documents as ‘his evidence’.  I’m guessing that this included details of his failure to answer the questions raised, a number of irrelevant issues and a complaint that the police stopped investigating.

4)      The courts correctly concluded that this dossier was not admissible evidence applying the applicable legislation and thus this dossier was not considered.

5)      The police reported to the courts that Peter had not cooperated with their investigation and thus they didn’t have any evidence to support his CICA claim.

6)      As the tribunal did not have any evidence they dismissed the case.

In addition:-

1)      At some stage in this Peter consulted a solicitor but they were also unable to extract the appropriate information from him and thus likely concluded that this case was not worth pursuing.

2)      Peter was also unimpressed with the solicitor as s/he didn’t agree with his understanding of either the process to be followed, the legal basis of his claim or the likelihood of success and thus considered the solicitor to be inadequate.

Peter is confident in his own abilities and that he has done everything correctly.   He doesn’t believe that he has done anything to prejudice his case and he is most likely disappointed with what he believes is the poor performance of the police, courts and this forum.  He will not take advice if this does not correspond to his views.  Sadly I think this is a case of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

In conclusion I think that Peter most likely had a valid CICA claim, but given how he has gone about making this claim as evidenced by his comments on this forum, I don’t believe that he can now bring this to a successful conclusion.  In a way, I think that society has let him down,  but primarily, with the exception of the original assault, he is the architect of his own misfortune.  He will continue to feel aggrieved and is likely to continue to make unsubstantiated allegations of illegal acts by the police and courts.

I don’t believe that he is amenable to any help or that anyone could help him now anyway.

hollydays

Peter Hook has a personality disorder

stragglebod

But he is a great bass player.

John_

PeterHook said:

ssparks2003 said:

PeterHook said:

lincroft1710 said:

Why did the Tribunal members remove an important document from the case?

Maybe because presently the world is very far to be perfect...

That may be the case but it doesn't answer the question that you was asked, you have come here asking for advice, the bare minimum that you could do is answer questions that you are asked clearly and concisely 

It's not me who removed this document from my case resulting in documents biased perverting the Court of Justice.

I guess this is due to corruption doubled with hypocrisy....

Your previous frivolous cases included allegations of missing documents too. You didn’t do those who helped the courtesy of updating them on where your claims failed, is there any chance of an update here?