I fought the IPC .....

zhonguonuren

zhonguonuren said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes. I've been trying to stop this for years now. 

Very interested now.  Who have you written to?  It may be someone I’ve missed.  

? 

zhonguonuren

and in any other case if the judge is sceptical about the truth.  

beamerguy

What do you actually know about Hurley and his past ???

zhonguonuren

beamerguy said:

What do you actually know about Hurley and his past ???

I am very interested in how he conducts his businesses.  I have Companies House alerts on every company he and JLGD are involved with.  The conflict of interest is well-known.  That’s about it.  You? 

beamerguy

zhonguonuren said:

beamerguy said:

What do you actually know about Hurley and his past ???

I am very interested in how he conducts his businesses.  I have Companies House alerts on every company he and JLGD are involved with.  The conflict of interest is well-known.  That’s about it.  You? 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=will+hurley

zhonguonuren

I’ve read PP’s blog.  I wondered if you knew anything more 

beamerguy

zhonguonuren said:

I’ve read PP’s blog.  I wondered if you knew anything more 

That's enough  if you take it to government to understand the IPC scam

Umkomaas

Why are some regulars seemingly undermining the efforts of someone who has infiltrated much further into the IPC morass than most?  More support than decrying would be helpful. If you can't support, just sit back and see what happens. It can't possibly be negative, can it?

nosferatu1001

zhonguonuren said:

nosferatu1001 said:

So, you can accept 
- it wasn't on oath
- that it isn't a requirement in small claims court?

No I don’t accept.  It depends on the case (for example - tort of deceit against a director of a company). 

It's a matter of fact. Their evidence was either taken under oath, or it wasn't. From what you e stated, it wasn't on oath. You're not able to place the, under oath, that's not your place in proceedings. 
you also lied by stating I'd said something I hadn't. 

I quoted the CPR which proves that evidence need not be taken on oath as well. 

I feel no reason to provide details when you're lying about the content of my posts. You even did it while quoting me. 

I applaud your efforts. But your diversions here aren't good. 

zhonguonuren

nosferatu1001 said:

zhonguonuren said:

nosferatu1001 said:

So, you can accept 
- it wasn't on oath
- that it isn't a requirement in small claims court?

No I don’t accept.  It depends on the case (for example - tort of deceit against a director of a company). 

It's a matter of fact. Their evidence was either taken under oath, or it wasn't. From what you e stated, it wasn't on oath. You're not able to place the, under oath, that's not your place in proceedings. 
you also lied by stating I'd said something I hadn't. 

I quoted the CPR which proves that evidence need not be taken on oath as well. 

I feel no reason to provide details when you're lying about the content of my posts. You even did it while quoting me. 

I applaud your efforts. But your diversions here aren't good. 

Someone actually thanked that load of tosh.  

There it is “need not” again.  

Were you party to the proceedings?  I have brought over 300 claims and lost one.  Unless you have a better track record just accept that I may know a bit more about this than you.