Vic Lilley wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:01 am, "Richard J." wrote:

On 26 Mar, 16:38, Vic Lilley wrote:
Motorist denied court hearings, asks Mayor where he stands
[snip]

Setting aside the obscure legal arguments, what are your real concerns
about the operation of PATAS? Do you have any examples where bias has
been demonstrated? Is this all because you were caught not paying the
congestion charge 5 years ago?

Sorry. Here is a brief explanation from my web site which I hope will
clarify things.

‘Lilley, who is not a user of the congestion charge scheme, got a
congestion charging penalty charge notice for £50, out of the blue,
dated 6th September 2004 and timed 18:13:19, when he accidentally went
into London in the evening, earlier than normal, to see a play.

Oh, surprise, surprise! This is all because you entered the zone during
its hours of operation and failed to pay the charge. Instead of just
paying the legitimate penalty, you claim you are "not a user of the
congestion charge scheme", and that everyone else is biased. Just cough
up and shut up.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Mar 28, 6:34*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Vic Lilley wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:01 am, "Richard J." wrote:
On 26 Mar, 16:38, Vic Lilley wrote:
Motorist denied court hearings, asks Mayor where he stands
[snip]
Setting aside the obscure legal arguments, what are your real concerns
about the operation of PATAS? *Do you have any examples where bias has
been demonstrated? *Is this all because you were caught not paying the
congestion charge 5 years ago? *
Sorry. Here is a brief explanation from my web site which I hope will
clarify things.

‘Lilley, who is not a user of the congestion charge scheme, got a
congestion charging penalty charge notice for £50, out of the blue,
dated 6th September 2004 and timed 18:13:19, when he accidentally went
into London in the evening, earlier than normal, to see a play.

Oh, surprise, surprise! *This is all because you entered the zone during
its hours of operation and failed to pay the charge. Instead of just
paying the legitimate penalty, you claim you are "not a user of the
congestion charge scheme", and that everyone else is biased. *Just cough
up and shut up.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

No, that isn’t ‘all.’ You are misrepresenting what I wrote.
Your claim that the penalty is legitimate, is just a bald assertion.
So that is a failure to give adequate reasons. That is what some of
the judges have done. and it is illegal for a public body to make such
a decision. If you were in court, making such a defence, you would
have to give reasons. That is not fair comment.

If you are happy with not being able to get a hearing, non
notification of debts, fines before conviction and excessive fines,
rights that go back centuries, then I suggest you look at those
countries without such rights, and consider if you would prefer to
live there. And if we do not defend these rights we will lose them.
These rights go back to Magna Carta and earlier. Our ancestors have
fought and died for them. So I am not coughing up or shutting up, I am
standing up, for my, and other citizens rights.

Vic Lilley wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:34 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Vic Lilley wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:01 am, "Richard J." wrote:
On 26 Mar, 16:38, Vic Lilley wrote:
Motorist denied court hearings, asks Mayor where he stands
[snip]
Setting aside the obscure legal arguments, what are your real concerns
about the operation of PATAS? Do you have any examples where bias has
been demonstrated? Is this all because you were caught not paying the
congestion charge 5 years ago?
Sorry. Here is a brief explanation from my web site which I hope will
clarify things.
‘Lilley, who is not a user of the congestion charge scheme, got a
congestion charging penalty charge notice for £50, out of the blue,
dated 6th September 2004 and timed 18:13:19, when he accidentally went
into London in the evening, earlier than normal, to see a play.

Oh, surprise, surprise! This is all because you entered the zone during
its hours of operation and failed to pay the charge. Instead of just
paying the legitimate penalty, you claim you are "not a user of the
congestion charge scheme", and that everyone else is biased. Just cough
up and shut up.

No, that isn’t ‘all.’ You are misrepresenting what I wrote.
Your claim that the penalty is legitimate, is just a bald assertion.
So that is a failure to give adequate reasons. That is what some of
the judges have done. and it is illegal for a public body to make such
a decision. If you were in court, making such a defence, you would
have to give reasons. That is not fair comment.

Look, mate. This is not a court. It's a bleeding newsgroup, and I'll
give my views without oodles of legal argument if I want to. By the
way, the lack of evidence didn't prevent you referring to the
adjudicators in the thread title as "biased to TfL". If you can make
wild statements unsupported by evidence, so can I.

If you are happy with not being able to get a hearing, non
notification of debts, fines before conviction and excessive fines,

The congestion charge and the penalties for late payment are not
'fines'. I would have thought you might have grasped that simple legal
fact by now.

By the way, did you have a good reason for adding to Central London road
congestion on 6 Sep 2004? Was it to test the legality of the Congestion
Charge Zone by deliberately infringing the zone and not paying? Or did
all this stuff about Magna Carta come to you later, when you were
scratching round for a defence?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Mar 29, 11:31*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Vic Lilley wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:34 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Vic Lilley wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:01 am, "Richard J." wrote:
On 26 Mar, 16:38, Vic Lilley wrote:
Motorist denied court hearings, asks Mayor where he stands
[snip]
Setting aside the obscure legal arguments, what are your real concerns
about the operation of PATAS? *Do you have any examples where bias has
been demonstrated? *Is this all because you were caught not paying the
congestion charge 5 years ago? *
Sorry. Here is a brief explanation from my web site which I hope will
clarify things.
‘Lilley, who is not a user of the congestion charge scheme, got a
congestion charging penalty charge notice for £50, out of the blue,
dated 6th September 2004 and timed 18:13:19, when he accidentally went
into London in the evening, earlier than normal, to see a play.
Oh, surprise, surprise! *This is all because you entered the zone during
its hours of operation and failed to pay the charge. Instead of just
paying the legitimate penalty, you claim you are "not a user of the
congestion charge scheme", and that everyone else is biased. *Just cough
up and shut up.
No, that isn’t ‘all.’ You are misrepresenting what I wrote.
Your claim that the penalty is legitimate, is just a bald assertion.
So that is a failure to give adequate reasons. That is what some of
the judges have done. and it is illegal for a public body to make such
a decision. If you were in court, making such a defence, you would
have to give reasons. That is not fair comment.

Look, mate. *This is not a court. *It's a bleeding newsgroup, and I'll
give my views without oodles of legal argument if I want to. *By the
way, the lack of evidence didn't prevent you referring to the
adjudicators in the thread title as "biased to TfL". *If you can make
wild statements unsupported by evidence, so can I.

If you are happy with not being able to get a hearing, non
notification of debts, fines before conviction and excessive fines,

The congestion charge and the penalties for late payment are not
'fines'. *I would have thought you might have grasped that simple legal
fact by now.

By the way, did you have a good reason for adding to Central London road
congestion on 6 Sep 2004? *Was it to test the legality of the Congestion
Charge Zone by deliberately infringing the zone and not paying? *Or did
all this stuff about Magna Carta come to you later, when you were
scratching round for a defence?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

‘Look, mate. This is not a court. It's a bleeding newsgroup, and
I'll
give my views without oodles of legal argument if I want to.’

Yes it is not a court. Yes of course you can give your views without
oodles of legal argument if you want to. But equally I’ll show just
how superficial and unfair your comments are, if I want to.

Your views were not only without oodles of legal argument, they were
without ‘any.’

‘By the
way, the lack of evidence didn't prevent you referring to the
adjudicators in the thread title as "biased to TfL". ‘

What lack of evidence? I think 4 years of not being able to get a case
heard, against and backed by TFL, smacks of bias.

‘If you can make wild statements unsupported by evidence, so can I.’
I’m not saying that you can’t. Just don’t expect not to be challenged
if you do.

If you are happy with not being able to get a hearing, non
notification of debts, fines before conviction and excessive fines,

‘The congestion charge and the penalties for late payment are not
'fines'. I would have thought you might have grasped that simple
legal
fact by now.’

Here you go again. Why??????????? Another of your bald assertions,
completely unsubstantiated. Come on, show .this simple legal fact?


‘By the way, did you have a good reason for adding to Central London
road
congestion on 6 Sep 2004? ‘

Yes. I had a friend staying with me and as a result went into London a
earlier than normal to see a play. Caught it at 18:13.

‘Was it to test the legality of the Congestion
Charge Zone by deliberately infringing the zone and not paying?’

No. I didn’t even know there was a congestion charge penalty charge. I
was aware of the congestion charge though.

‘Or did
all this stuff about Magna Carta come to you later, when you were
scratching round for a defence?’

Later. Much later in fact. Magna Carta came into play due to the claim
not being heard, and was nothing to do with the original claim. I did
scratch around for a defence for the original claim. I couldn’t find
an Act that related to public bodies notifying citizens about debts. I
still haven’t found such an act, despite a judge telling me it had to
be an act.