Author Topic: Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.  (Read 18490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« on: 11 July, 2012, 07:36:20 PM »
The original 'Disclaimer topic' for some reason is locked.  I have therefore started this new thread.

Could 'Web Admin' please elaborate.  Specifically what 'activities' and/or 'opinions' are you referring to? 

Can you please refer to specific 'opinions and/or activities' that you object to and that you are 'no longer prepared to have our names associated' with.  I use my name on this forum.  Perhaps you (Web Admin.) will also give yours so that everyone will know who it is that is making this statement.

« Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 06:01:28 AM by Nigel W »

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #1 on: 11 July, 2012, 08:18:12 PM »
I can't think of anything objectionable. Feel free to elaborate.
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #2 on: 11 July, 2012, 08:36:46 PM »
No To Mob coordinators feel it is necessary to make a public announcement concerning Mr Nigel Wise, a No To Mob (NTM) member (known as Nigel W on this forum).

Why?

In the past Mr Wise has made statements to the press and to various organisations when his opinions have aligned with the majority of those in the NTM, sometimes being allowed to express jointly held views on behalf of the NTM.


So, when it is agreeable for conflation to take place, it is acceptable.

However, NTM coordinators are no longer prepared to have our names associated with Mr Wise's activities, and/or opinions.


Why?

Consequently, we would like to make it clear that Mr Wise’s statements and actions are made entirely on his own behalf and must not be construed as representing the views of the NTM.

Et tu Brute.

I regard Nigel as a friend and passionate, fellow-campaigner.  Having joined this forum recently, it is abundantly clear that he is the legal backbone of the forum and is here, simply and sincerely, to help all others.  It seems to me that not many would have the dedication, energy and knowledge to go to the wire and beyond.

In view of this unsolicited and, hitherto, unexplained attack on my friend, I shall be visiting this forum less frequently.  Further, I joined this organisation to be able to express my views and knowledge in order to help others.

In my view, it would be more expedient to spend less time bitching about councils and more time attacking directly the two tribunals from the top.
« Last Edit: 11 July, 2012, 08:46:07 PM by The Phoenix »
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #3 on: 11 July, 2012, 10:08:00 PM »
From telephone calls that I have made to some of the coordinators it appears that I made some 'inappropriate comments' about an adjudicator.  These were reported in the Westminster Review decision.

In my written Westminster submissions in my application for a review I stated:

"Mr. Teper's decision ... is self-evidently false and ridiculous ... an appalling Statement of Decision ...
It seems to depend on which day of the month Mr. Teper decides an appeal as to whether he allows it
It is further reprehensible on the part of Mr. Teper ..."
   

I was referring to the original Pool Motors Decision.  I was simply stating the facts.  I could have said that Mr Teper allowed an appeal one day then refused one on the same grounds on another.  That would have amounted to the same thing.  It would have still been the truth.

More public criticism of Adjudicators and praise for my grounds by BE which contained 'emotive language'.  The following posts are a drop in the ocean.

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1926.msg15505.html#msg15505

"I have just read the attached document. I am amazed that the adjudicator actually thinks he can get away with his behaviour. If that isn't showing bias I don't know what is. I would love to read the adjudicator's reaction to your representations for review. Do they seriously think that we are all going to roll over and accept a travesty of justice. More power to your pen Nigel." Seggsy.

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2051.msg16906.html#msg16906

"The Adjudicator cannot spell the Latin maxim, either.  Still, in his case, we will apply and allow de minimis non curat lex.    De minimus!  Maybe Homer after a few Duff beers."
The Pheonix.

Thank f  :o ck he didn't bring up a valid point of law. I can just refuse the appeal now. NEXT!
The adjudicator allows an appeal only when there is absolutely no other option.
The appeal is refused. Pay up sucker.  Ewan Hoosami

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,777.msg6904.html#msg6904

"Having read your objection, all I can say is I wish I had had your fully researched and well reasoned argument to hand then, because I cannot see how any unbiased adjudicator would find that Westminster were indeed entitled to dismiss the Secretary of State out of hand.

I think the lesson to be learned here is, if you get a parking ticket issued to you by CCTV (fixed or mobile), have a word with Nigel.  If you used his argument successfully at Patas or the I believe this would set a precedent that would have wide reaching effects for any council already using, or who are contemplating using CCTV to enforce parking restrictions.

Rock on Nigel." :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: Bald Eagle

N.

Did any of these posters receive a Disclaimer notice?

Our Aims

"We are a Campaign Group dedicated to regaining the voice of the Individual.

Initially we are taking on the so called Parking "Industry", but our remit will not stop there.

We want to open the public's eyes to the likes of the oppression we have already encountered at local and central Government level, and will explore in an open forum any lawful ways of fighting oppression, greed and corruption at all levels of Business and Government.

We will do this by direct action.

We need an army of volunteers, armchair or otherwise to join us and stand as one to simply say ENOUGH!

People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people."


It appears that the 'voice of the individual' cannot now even state the facts.

In the sprit of an 'open forum' is that why the 'disclaimer topic' was posted anonymously by Web Admin?  Is that why the topic was locked?  Is that why nobody even contacted me before posting it?
« Last Edit: 11 July, 2012, 10:24:26 PM by Nigel W »

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #4 on: 11 July, 2012, 11:35:58 PM »
Nigel,

I fail to see how you pointing out the fact, and it is a fact by the way, that the adjudicators are as bent as a nine pound note, can be construed as inappropriate. Adjudicators have often said words to the effect of; "We cannot force councils to accept mitigating circumstances, we can only rule on points of law." Fair enough. If you build a cast iron case with a valid point of law and it is thrown out, how can that be anything other than 'false and ridiculous'? This is especially true when the same grounds are accepted one day and then thrown out the next. Perhaps there is a coin involved, heads I win, tails you lose.

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #5 on: 12 July, 2012, 12:51:06 AM »
Quote Nigel W:

From telephone calls that I have made to some of the coordinators it appears that I made some 'inappropriate comments' about an adjudicator.  These were reported in the Westminster Review decision.


So what?  Mr Wise does not appear at PATAS in any other capacity than as a representative for a private motorist.  He does not appear on behalf of this forum.  Though, of course, when he wins, everyone applauds.  But, presumably, it is acceptable for an adjudicator to "give Nigel a hard time"!    :idea:

I am going back to Shakespeare.  Or some Welsh barred.  No typo intended.  Or even the Bible:  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

@Nigel W:  in order to resolve this anomaly, I suggest you change your username to Sir Thomas More.
« Last Edit: 12 July, 2012, 01:14:44 AM by The Phoenix »
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Re: Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #6 on: 12 July, 2012, 09:05:59 AM »
Would it be possible to know exactly what remarks are/were considered 'inappropriate', so that we (the members) can make an informed decision?

Offline seggsy

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #7 on: 12 July, 2012, 09:18:20 AM »
I would like to know the reasons behind this. Has a 3rd party exerted pressure on the web admins of this forum.
Nigel has been a stalwart of this forum and a man I have a lot of respect for. This seems very strange.......
Politicians doncha just 'ate em

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #8 on: 12 July, 2012, 07:08:03 PM »
Would it be possible to know exactly what remarks are/were considered 'inappropriate', so that we (the members) can make an informed decision?

Yes, if you would care to read the decision which is on the appropriate thread.
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #9 on: 12 July, 2012, 07:14:37 PM »
Another victory for the "disclaimed" maestro i.e. Nigel Wise today.  Both adjudicator and representative were exemplary in their conduct, and the latter was articulate, concise, well-mannered and forceful at the same time.  The former wanted to adjourn but, in the end, saw sense and allowed the appeal.

Go, Nige, go. Never to the Tower for you!  (Angel burger just gone down.  Cheers.)

Here it is -  another non-certification victory:


Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference:   2110609137
Appellant:
Authority:   Newham
VRM:   
PCN:   PN04602488
Contravention Date:   26 Jul 2011
Contravention Time:   09:52
Contravention Location:   Green Street
Penalty Amount:   £130.00
Contravention:   Parked in a loading place without loading
Decision Date:   12 Jul 2012
Adjudicator:   Gerald Styles
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:   Today the appellant attended in person  and was represented by Mr Wise. The  Council was not represented.

This case has had a very protracted history. The cctv clip concerned is one from 26 July  2011.

At earlier hearings (at  none of  which the  appellant  was  present)  before Adjudicator Miss Anderson she  adjourned as several issues involved in the present case were then  pending consideration in  a panel hearing arising from the  appeals of different appellants.

I have not considered the nine pages of typescript submissions  that Mr Wise laid before me at the hearing today.

I considered adjourning this case for listing for further hearing before and deliberation by   Miss Anderson but considered further delay inappropriate in all the circumstances.

My focus today has been a very limited one. The Council sent a VCA certificate dated 17   August 2011 as part of its original case. It apologised for this error  when it  wrote  on   21 February 2011  enclosing a VCA  certificate of  30 March 2009.

Mr Wise has pointed out and I accept this, that the camera  model for the crucial cctv clip is  an  Ernitech  one  and the  additional  VCA certificate  dated  30 March  2009  does not certify any Ernitech  equipment.

Whether there is  a  another  certificate  in Newham possession  that  should   have  been  sent   instead of  that dated 30  March  2009  is not wholly clear  to me. I have considered whether the  same  equipment might  have differing  manufacturer and  model  names but reached no conclusion about that.   

Mr Wise urged  me to  make a decision today  given the  earlier extended  adjournment history and I have  now done so. In  summary  I have  concluded  that there is too much uncertainty about a  relevant  valid VCA certificate in relation to 26 July 2011 and I have consequently allowed this appeal.

I have decided it is unnecessary for me to address any of  the other numerous  appeal points  raised and I have not done so. 



Quote:-  Whether there is  a  another  certificate  in Newham possession  that  should   have  been  sent   instead of  that dated 30  March  2009  is not wholly clear  to me

Nice one.  Nigel did offer to show him all their certificates but he declined to accept.  Another lesson in how a PATAS adjudicator will attempt to bend over backwards to explain or allow for a total cock-up by an authority.  But the wise man was having nothing to do with it.  Nor the gentle appellant.

Well done to both of you.   :dancing:
« Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 12:58:24 PM by The Phoenix »
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

Offline tommy the trumpet

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 504
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #10 on: 12 July, 2012, 10:40:02 PM »
I am a little concerned about this whole episode, this site has done a lot of good for the victims of the parking extortion scam.

There is always some very valid views and some not so ( i should know i've posted a few)and thats what makes the character of the site.
Its not one view but a collective contribution from everyone.

I for one have a lot of respect for what Nigel has done in the past and the statement was very surprising ,lets face it the majority on here have posted some extreme views of which take various responses.

This seems to have an air of censorship to it which will take away our cutting edge.


The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.    
Ciao Marco #58

Offline l33sha

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #11 on: 12 July, 2012, 11:43:17 PM »
Well all I have to say is Nigel has been a great help in my case and I don't think I could have won it without his knowledge and expertise. So for that I'd like to say thank you and I am grateful for the time and effort put into the appeal, it's been a long winded process and finally has come to an end. The coordinators of this forum have got it completely wrong, any form of help in favour of the motorist is good help and it shouldn't be hindered or stifled in any way as it could prove pivotal in the outcome of an appeal, mine being an example. I don't think Nigel has said he is a representative of this forum but, without forums like these, people like me would not have got the help needed to overturn a PCN so no need to oust the help!

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #12 on: 13 July, 2012, 12:51:06 AM »
Well all I have to say is Nigel has been a great help in my case and I don't think I could have won it without his knowledge and expertise. So for that I'd like to say thank you and I am grateful for the time and effort put into the appeal, it's been a long winded process and finally has come to an end. The coordinators of this forum have got it completely wrong, any form of help in favour of the motorist is good help and it shouldn't be hindered or stifled in any way as it could prove pivotal in the outcome of an appeal, mine being an example. I don't think Nigel has said he is a representative of this forum but, without forums like these, people like me would not have got the help needed to overturn a PCN so no need to oust the help!

Out of the mouths of babes, and, babe, you were a babe today because that adjudicator was not, at first, even willing to hear your case and you remained calm, polite and steadfast.  I fully support your views re Nigel and it is about time someone or other made a formal and public apology.  The man has charisma and I noted that we all communicated with each other as if we were old friends or family.

I noted all what was said at that hearing and you performed really well!  Good luck to you. :)

Your case is important to others.   ;)
« Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 12:55:07 AM by The Phoenix »
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

Offline The Phoenix

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #13 on: 13 July, 2012, 11:55:05 AM »
There are several other forums that offer advice.  Of course.  But hardly any with a member who will stand up and be counted and represent people free of charge at PATAS or the TPT.  I also agree re the timng issue.

Any PM's to BE are not what is needed.  The details should be openly published on the site.

Thus far, anyone from "The Dark Side" can only interpret this unnecessary business as a victory for them.  And believe me, they do read all the forums - very often to learn from them!
« Last Edit: 13 July, 2012, 02:32:29 PM by The Phoenix »
The Patas Monkey has a remarkably high reproductive rate, perhaps as an evolutionary response to the high adult mortality rates associated with this strongly terrestrial lifestyle.  Not to be confused with the Patas Adjudicator - a species yet to be studied.  Use extreme caution: it's  unpredictable

Offline BAILIFFCHASER

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 234
Re: Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #14 on: 13 July, 2012, 09:44:49 PM »
I personally think this smells of something fishy. There is something that is going a miss somewhere !

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player