Like db April 8, I too followed the suggested letter format following a penalty Charge Notice and have just received a letter from the council, saying that the 1991 Road Traffic Act "sets the Terms of the borough enforcement powers and repeals any legislation that contradicts these powers". This act, they say, also makes no mention of a fine or forfeiture and hence mention of a fine in the Bill of Rights does not apply.

Have you abandoned this campaign because the authorities can legally and effectively challenge it? Since you were encouraging people to use this approach six weeks ago, a response would be most appropriate

The term "fine or forfeiture" as used in The Bill of Rights does *NOT* mean "a financial penalty". It has a different meaning and fell into disuse in Tudor times.

If you look up "Feet of Fines" you will get more information.

re (GJ): "...sets the terms of the borough enforcement powers and repeals any legislation that contradicts these powers"


REPLY: GJ, try and wear them down.

I suggest something like this:


"Please send me a copy of the Borough's enforcement powers.

"Please also state what legislation was repealed by the 1991 Road Traffic Act and how the 1991 Act purported to do so.

"You will need to refer me to the actual legislation and paragraphs thereof.

"Please also state whether you accept or not that the 1688/9 Bill and Declaration of Rights entitles me to have a Court hearing before you impose any fine.

"Please note that I consider that I am entitled to all this information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and that I consider that any failure of yours to supply this information would be a breach of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, especially looking at the latest line of judgments on that Article.

"When I receive your reply, I shall be pleased to give further consideration to the matter of whether or not you have any valid legal power to take any action against me whatsoever without an order of the Court.

"Any action taken against me in the meantime which purports to issue sanctions against me without a Court Order would be treated me by me as harassment under the terms of Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

"Finally, please inform me whether or not your authority has the benefit of Counsel's Opinion on this issue. I consider you have a duty to inform me whether or not you do have Counsel's Opinion under the Freedom of Information Act".


If you decide to go down that route, post the Council's reply publicly here and I'll try and advise you what to do next

'A Solicitor'

I notice that Tony's reply gives no consideration to the question of "guilt"

The first question that a competent solicitor should ask of a client is "Do you think you are guilty of the offence charged?"

The second question is "As a solicitor, how do I best defend my client"

If the answer is to Q1 is "yes" or "yes, but", the solicitor should devote his (or her) time to pleas in mitigation.

If, however, you have a solicitor who pays no consideration to guilt, wishes to run up his expenses, costs the treasury vast amounts of money & wastes valuable court time, I would suggest that you employ Michael Shrimpton.

When "A Solicitor" was prosecuted, he was found guilty (after appeal) on one offence. As I doubt that "A solicitor") paid his own costs, these costs may have been paid by someone.........

Does the Freedom of Information Act apply to BWMA/Metric Martyrs fund etc????

I'm sure that "A solicitor" (damn my keyboard!) will confirm he paid all his own costs if I am wrong......

GJ - some serious advice.....

BWMA hope you lose your case. If you do, they hope to use you to challenge the ruling in a totally different case relating to use of imperial scales to measure metric weight. They have no interest in parking, unless they lose this case & try to use it as a basis for appeal.

They will (probably) not pay your costs if/when you lose, but will want to use you for publicity for their own ends.

Don't fight unless you have a cast-iron guarantee that they will pay your costs if/when you lose.

If you didn't park illegally, fight it! If you did, pay the fine.....

Moderator,

Could we please have a ruling on the highly unpleasant language used by Beranger in the posting above? - which I don't wish to see on this board - nor I would think do most others - whoever is being talked about

re (Beranger): "I notice that Tony's reply gives no consideration to the question of 'guilt'


REPLY: Beranger seems to have forgotten that under English law - later adopted by Scotland - one is innocent until proven guilty by a Court

Tony

I am very well aware that any accused is considered innocent until proved guilty or until he pleads "guilty".

Note the important difference. If a "guilty" plea is entered, no evidence is lead. In Scotland, the Fiscal then reads out the "Summary of Facts" & asks for sentence. The defence then makes a plea in mitigation. The Sheriff then passes sentence or defers sentencing for reports. I assume that something similar happens in England.

As you are no doubt aware, I was describing a meeting between a solicitor and his client to discuss potential defences. These meetings are protected by client confidentiality.

If a client states (at this meeting) "Yeah, I did it, but I want you to try to find a loophole to get me off with it, the solicitor is duty-bound to try his best to get a verdict of "not guilty" (or in Scotland, "not guilty" or "not proven")

With regard to your statement "English law - later adopted by Scotland" - you are talking absolute nonsense!!!!!

"Innocent until proved guilty" is a fundamental principle of Scots Law. The only thing that has been adopted from English Law is the use of the terms "Guilty" & "Not Guilty"

Under Scots Law, an accused would face a jury of 15 (not 12) and would be convicted if (after instructing the Sheriff that the jury could not come to a unanimous decision) 8 jurors found the case "Proven". Otherwise, the case was "Not Proven". Nice and simple.

Now we have a situation where Scots Courts have had to take on "Guilty" & "Not Guilty" as verdicts, but "Not Proven" has not been removed as a verdict.

This has lead to a situation where "Not Proven" has acquired a reputation as suggesting that a jury is saying "Not Guilty, but don't do it again!"

Calls to scrap the not proven verdict have been going on for years. Personally, I would prefer to go back to "Proven" & "Not Proven"

Tony

With regard to my "highly unpleasant" language, are you hoping to have the whole post deleted - just because I suggest that BWMA would like parking tickets to be enforced in the hope that they can force a further W&M appeal regarding the Bill of Rights?

I hope this moral crusade will also include all examples of posters calling each other "f****** morons" and your continual attempts to portray TSO's as belonging to a 1930's/1940's German political party.

Look to your bible - something to do with motes, eyes & beams.

re (Beranger): "Tony - with regard to my 'highly unpleasant' language, are you hoping to have the whole post deleted?"

REPLY: No. Just the unnecessary unpleasant words. There is no need for them on these boards. I believe TV (I don't have one) uses a high-pitched bleep to remove such words

Maybe they still use the bleep before 9pm (the watershed), but most swear words appear to be allowed after that(there is one (The "C-word") that you practically never hear though).

Should a programme contain extreme language, violence or sexual content, a warning is usually given beforehand.

However, I see no language in my post which would be "bleeped" before 9pm. Both "Arse" and "Damn" have featured on recent episodes of "The Simpsons" - a programme popular with children & adults.

Amendment made.

Tony: "REPLY: No. Just the unnecessary unpleasant words. There is no need for them on these boards. I believe TV (I don't have one) uses a high-pitched bleep to remove such words"

Stan: Goodness me. It's alright Tony, they sell TV sizes in inches you know.

Before anyone suggests that I posted truely offensive stuff on the site, I would remind everyone that I only made a couple of puns based upon "A Solicitor". I have a copy of the offending post, and feel that BWMA are acting in a biased manner.

They both started with the word "ass" - not "arse" which may be suggested by the uncensored post above.

I have a sense of humour - why do you think that I have replied using the name Deranged/Beranger to Xcole's latest messages to me.

I hope that BWMA's censorship of humourous posts does not continue.

"""Stan: Goodness me. It's alright Tony, they sell TV sizes in inches you know."""

But they are made in metric. Maybe it is time to get the tape measure out and see how close the advertised size is to the real size. The monitor for my computer is suppose to be 19 inch. The viewable diagonal length is 455 mm.

re (Stan): "Goodness me. It's alright, Tony, they sell TV sizes in inches you know"


REPLY: On many political issues these days, the BBC gives you only half an argument. They put out material little short of depraved like 'Jerry Springer - the Opera' (who enjoys that sort of stuff - honestly?), and charge you £130 a year.

You get the news about 100 times more quickly on the Internet and can get to find out about a lot of the things going on in the world that the BBC doesn't like telling you about.

Pity about missing the cricket on Channel 4, but there you go

Erin, 455 IS 18"....

Stan: "Goodness me. It's alright Tony, they sell TV sizes in inches you know."

Apparently there is life outside TV. I know of two people who don't have TV's.
I'm not arguing with you. After "air" I too find TV to be a fundamental necessity in life.

"""Erin, 455 IS 18"...."""

455 mm is 17.91 inches, or were you using vinyl record inches?

Beranger
The post was not edited for humour, but that the solicitor in question is also a regular poster on this board.
However, I was careful did not remove any of your argument. Kind regards.

BWMA

Simply, I disagree with the censorship you have decided to impose. I feel that your argument regarding the "regularity" of the poster holds no water.

I feel that my post was far less offensive than many that have been ignored by yoursef (as moderator)

If I had posted something that might be considered offensive to a one-time poster, would BWMA consider that it merited different treatment?

Bryan

Much as I hate to agree with Erin, he is right on this occasion. Somehow, the TV manufacturers have managed to get to a situation where the "actual size" of the screen (across the diagonal) can be expressed in inches, while the "visual size" (ie what you can see) is expressed in mm

Personally, I feel that the inch size is cheating, because bits of the screen are hidden behind the plastic surround. Never mind though, if you pull off the plastic trim around the screen, you can enjoy the whole picture in imperial!!!!!

Funny how the imperialists get all chocked up over monitor trade names in inches but never seem to mention the other features of the monitor that are in metric. The resolution is always given in millimetres. My monitor has a 0.26 mm dot pitch. Never is this translated into imperial.

<<
Somehow, the TV manufacturers have managed to get to a situation where the "actual size" of the screen (across the diagonal) can be expressed in inches, while the "visual size" (ie what you can see) is expressed in mm
>>

You may find the situation on this side of the Atlantic interesting. Americans measure the viewable picture, and Canadians prefer to measure the actual screen size. So you get labels that say things like "13 inches (14 in Canada)."

Strange but true.

Bud,

This is a function of what the respective legislatures have allowed the advertisers to get away with. One of the reasons for the so-called red tape in the EU is to minimise this very sort of thing happening here. Thus, if I buy something in Italy and look at the specification, (for example sugar content which concerns me since I am diabetic), then I know that it has the same meaning as in the UK.

This is also the reason why the EU is seeking to have a single system of measurement across all countries - since there are now 20 languaegs or so within the EU, then is is all the more important the text "20cm" has the same meaning is all countries, especially if it is incorportated into a pictogram.

Erin, Ber, how do you know the size isn't REALLY in inches. The difference is so absolutely minscule as to be difficult to tell whether it is inches or millimetres "really". As if any of this matters anyway- if Erin doesn't shut up with his vinil rekkordz iz metrik rubbish- and if Steve doesn't either- I swear I am going to go on a murderous rampage.

"Personally, I feel that the inch size is cheating, because bits of the screen are hidden behind the plastic surround."

So the *actual* size is in inches, and for trade reasons the metric *might* get mentioned. That's cool!

Actually, to be fair, I have seen things like '16" monitor (15.8" viewable)'.

These days its not such an issue with plasma.

Also my rear-projection TV has no "hidden" area and is 56".

I measured it by sticking vinyl records together and glueing them to the screen.

Unfortunately I had to cut 4 inches off the farthest record so the damn thing jumps like crazy when I play it.

Fortunately it was a record by the Proclaimers called "The Proclaimers Greatest Hits and other Anti-UK songs"

;-)

(Do I hear the rage of one, or two?)

>>>> "I feel that my post was far less offensive than many that have been ignored by yoursef (as moderator)"

Impartiality by myself is important to maintain confidence in these forums.

Due to the extensive nature of some of the discussions, I do not read every entry, or even every thread. The deletion above occurred because I caught Tony's request above and agreed with it.

Anyone is welcome to draw my attention to anything that is inappropriate.

"""Erin, Ber, how do you know the size isn't REALLY in inches. The difference is so absolutely minscule as to be difficult to tell whether it is inches or millimetres "really".""""


For one, most TVs today are made in Japan or some Asian country. Asia is afully metric region of the world. All of their industries and economy are metric. The TVs are made to metric specifications.


"""As if any of this matters anyway- """

It matters if you are promoting metric and want everyone to know that metric is the system used in manufacturing and imperial is either a trade name, a remnant or an after-thought.

"""if Erin doesn't shut up with his vinil rekkordz iz metrik rubbish- and if Steve doesn't either- I swear I am going to go on a murderous rampage."""


You imperialists are so violent! Is this part of the rage of not having it your way?

Yes, yes it is.

lol! nice one Bryan!




------------



<< For one, most TVs today are made in Japan or some Asian country. Asia is afully metric region of the world. All of their industries and economy are metric. The TVs are made to metric specifications. >>

That failed argument again.
So if planes are all made to read out heights in feet, this must mean that all the air in the world is imperial! Cool!
And thus it would be impossible to measure height anywhere in the world in metric, because the two "systems" are on seperate dimensions.
Woah!

<<It matters if you are promoting metric and want everyone to know that metric is the system used in manufacturing and imperial is either a trade name, a remnant or an after-thought.>>

I think it matters more to pro-metric folk when the likes of yourself include the words "promoting metric" in your arguments!
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have a clue at what I'm talking about (whilst insisting that 'wars' are being won!!)

LOL!!

"""if Erin doesn't shut up with his vinil rekkordz iz metrik rubbish- and if Steve doesn't either- I swear I am going to go on a murderous rampage."""
<<<You imperialists are so violent! Is this part of the rage of not having it your way?>>>

Bryan is being humorous, he has (look this up) a "sense of humour".

I don't forget the vicious crap you used to post to metricsucks.

(Between 'mallet sessions' of course.)

Oh, tell us more about 500g "pounds". It is something we all need to hear about again.....

I'm really confused. I'm certain that my kitchen range must be 914 mm because I only have a metre stick and that's what it says when I measure it. For some reason the instruction manual that came with it says its 36 inches. But since I don't have a yard stick and only a metre stick I know that can't be right it's really 914 mm, I know everyone else must be pretending it's 36 inches.

If I say it enough it makes it true! TRUE I TELL YOU!!

Ow and let me tell you about my 302 mm record! I got board tonight and had such fun with my metric ruler and my record collection. I've taken to measuring them instead of listening to them. Not a 12 inch record in my collection. I know that the United States used only metric equipment during the 60's to make them; ow people claim it's 12 inches. But I know better.

now were is my mallet....

Really Steve, give you twenty five point four millimetre and you take one million six hundred and nine thousand three hundred and forty four of 'em.

"""I'm really confused. I'm certain that my kitchen range must be 914 mm because I only have a metre stick and that's what it says when I measure it. For some reason the instruction manual that came with it says its 36 inches. But since I don't have a yard stick and only a metre stick I know that can't be right it's really 914 mm, I know everyone else must be pretending it's 36 inches."""


Or the range is a true 900 mm and just called 36 inch as a trade name or an approximation. Most times when inches are described the actual measurement isn't evem close.

Stan said: "Really Steve, give you twenty five point four millimetre and you take one million six hundred and nine thousand three hundred and forty four of 'em."

1) I admire your sense of humour there, Stan.

2) Although I would love to claim it, the post to which you refer (anonymous) was not by me.


P.S. If I accidentally "post blind" (ie 'Anonymous') I will apologies and state so.
--------------

P.S.2. I found a metre-stick the other day. I measured it only to find it was 1/1000th of an inch too small.
Just another example of one of those there "trade names", gardarnit.