Author Topic: Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.  (Read 14721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline l33sha

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #30 on: 16 July, 2012, 01:31:28 AM »
Actually I myself was redirected here by members of Pepipoo when I asked for help on my case, they specifically pointed out Nigel because of his expertise on CCTV matters. Maybe NTM have been threatened by legal action, or maybe not. But shouldn't the disclaimer this site has hold up in case of legal action? The reason forums like this exist is for people to help each other and provide assistance, and the person who does have more knowledge on parking laws is the very person the coordinators will shoot down, why? Saving your own skin at the expense of another user it seems. Oh that question posed was an insult to my intelligence to say the least, shocked and surprised that they had the audacity to ask that.

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #31 on: 16 July, 2012, 07:09:34 AM »
Yet again the unfounded and unexplained banning of contributers to this site continues.  This time for someone who dared to support me and ask awkward questions.  I have just been informed that The Phoenix has received the same ban that I received from someone with their finger on the button and with the 'power' to do so.  My ban was lifted overnight but his ban states: Sorry Guest, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.  This ban is not set to expire. 

I quote from: http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1359.msg11278/topicseen.html#msg11278 a post by BE:

It's called "Freedom of speech" as far as I know. I may not agree with his style or even his approach, but I will defend his right to say it, provided it is factual.

Let's see if they try to shut Olly down again. Obviously it didn't work the last time so their case can't have been that strong..


The Phoenix has now been "shut down" on this site for his "style and approach."  Again no reasons have been given to him.

and from http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1923.msg16328/topicseen.html#msg16328 another post by BE:

Definitely on for next Friday. If Olly is convicted, I believe it will mark the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in this country.

Perhaps BE will now be true to his word and see to it that The Pheonix's ban is rescinded. We will see.

The Phoenix is a respected poster on pepipoo who like me has been responsible for many wins at PaTAS on behalf of appellants.  If for any reason I stop posting on here it will only be due to another ban.  That would amount to censorship of someones freedom of speech who was stating the facts in their own way. 

It has also been brought to my attention that the NTM powers that be have been running a behind the scenes email operation.  NTM members that have dared to post questioning the reasons for the disclaimer in my support have received an email.  The email contains the following:

Guys

First, please read the full Judgment attached. I appreciate it is lengthy and time consuming, but we (the NTM senior coordinators) feel it is essential that it is read in its entirety.

Then please read this, WCC's press statement:


The mail contains:

A copy of the PaTAS Westminster review decision. (The attachment).
A Copy of WCC's Press Release.
A Copy of the TransportXtra Article minus the comment that has been posted beneath it. 

The email then continues:

If you require any further information I would appreciate it if you would contact me via email, and not invite me, or other coordinators to partake in discussions on the site. FYI, Nigel has openly declared to us that he will not be changing the way that he conducts appeals at Patas or the TPT.
 
I trust that you will not publish elsewhere any personal remarks I make on emails. Thank you.


I have not published the name of the sender of this mail so therefore I have not published any "personal remarks."

1. Copies of my grounds for review that contained the 'inappropriate language' were first sent to the 'senior coordinators' way back on Mon, 5 Mar 2012 @ 20:54.  Neither of the coordinators made any complaint about the contents then.  They even attended the subsequent hearing on 23 rd May so they had no problem being associated with me or the alleged 'inappropriate language' then.

2. I posted the Westminster review decision here at reply # 204:  http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1364.195.html ;  on 26 th. June 2012.  I did this after consultation with the senior coordinators.

3. The WCC press release is only to be expected.  As all press releases do, It contains their spin. As we all know Westminster will use any opportunity they can to rubbish campaigners.  It shows that we have them rattled when they issue such a press release regarding a parking appeal.

4. the TransportXrta article is in the trade paper for the 'parking and transport industry' so what do you expect.  The company Landor that runs TransportXtra states: Markets we serve: Traffic & Transport, Urban Design, Parking & Enforcement.... They also state that: We connect with every Local Authority in the UK. It is therefore hardly surprising that they connected with Westminster and quoted verbatim the Westminster press release in the article.

I have attached a copy of the post under the TransportXtra article to this post.  It can also be found here: 
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2299.0.html

5. The FYI, Nigel has openly declared to us that he will not be changing the way that he conducts appeals at Patas or the TPT. part of the mail is perfectly correct.  I conducted another appeal in the same way last week and won.  I will be visiting PaTAS again this week - more to follow.  Please also see my post #29 in this thread.  I do not appear at any tribunal as a representative of the NoToMob.  Nor do I ever state that I represent the Mob in any press interview or broadcast.  I simply state that I am a member of the NoToMob.  There is a clear distinction.  This does NOT leave the Mob open to any 'legal action' whatsoever.

6. The If you require any further information I would appreciate it if you would contact me via email, and not invite me, or other coordinators to partake in discussions on the site. part of the mail is the main bit that the people that have forwarded the mail to me can't understand.

According to the Disclaimer itself it is the coordinators that have agreed to the disclaimer.  People have asked the coordinators why the disclaimer has been posted on an open forum.  They expect as I do that if the coordinators have nothing to hide they will also respond on the same open forum.  Web Admin who posted the disclaimer has been conspicuous by his/her absence.  People have also asked who this person is - there has been no answer.

This email also puts to bed the suggestion that the NTM coordinators may have been 'threatened with legal action'.  It establishes the fact that the disclaimer is a knee jerk reaction.  There can be no possible reason or justification for a disclaimer save for a general one under these circumstances.

The only coordinator to break cover so far is Peperami who I admire and applaud for doing so.

He has done so here: 

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2298.0.html

Where he says:

Nigel, good luck with this. Your doing this in your name, and good on you. You have put so much time and effort in things in the past, and i hope you carry on all the time you wish to.

Things have got messy, and there are lessons there for all of us.
   I certainly agree with him 100%. 

United We Stand Divided We Fall.

Here is my own disclaimer:

EVERYTHING I DO OR SAY I DO OR SAY IN MY OWN NAME NOT FROM BEHIND A PSEUDONYM AND NOT IN THE NAME OF OR AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NoToMob.

Perhaps by my publishing my own disclaimer it will encourage the Coordinators to take down the offensive locked Disclaimer and subsequently replace it with a general disclaimer as other websites routinely have.  We will then all be able to get back to the real work of fighting revenue driven enforcement.  That is what we are here for after all.

 

« Last Edit: 16 July, 2012, 07:21:41 AM by Nigel W »

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Nigel Wise a Disclaimer.
« Reply #32 on: 16 July, 2012, 11:06:07 AM »
People have asked for an explanation of why we put the disclaimer up. Nigel neglects to put in the pertinent points provided in the email referred to in his last post. Here they are in full.  This is only part of the explanation of why we did what we did, but goes some way to explain to those who really want to know, why we have parted company with Nigel.

Nigel's way is not the No To Mob way.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys

First, please read the full Judgment attached. I appreciate it is lengthy and time consuming, but we (the NTM senior coordinators) feel it is essential that it is read in its entirety.
 
Then please read this, WCC's press statement:

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

"Westminster City Council today welcomes a clear and detailed judgment from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PaTAS) that provides helpful guidance to motorists and other adjudicators alike in the proper approach to the city council’s evidence of parking contraventions captured by CCTV cameras.
 
Following a consolidated review before a panel of three adjudicators on May 23, PaTAS confirmed that the whole of the city council’s CCTV system for parking enforcement is certified by the Secretary of State, which was the main extent of concern.
 
The service also confirmed that the specifics of the system, or challenges, to the certification itself (including camera specifications), or the format of the certificate is not a valid basis for an appeal.
 
Leith Penny, strategic director for city management, said: “We have always maintained that our CCTV system is fully compliant with all regulatory requirements, and are pleased that this position has been so categorically endorsed by this judgement”.
 
“Far too much of both PaTAS’s and the council’s time has been taken up by self-styled campaigners who seem more concerned with advancing their own agendas rather than the interests of their clients. This decision draws welcome attention to some dubious practices, and the risk of cases being brought before PaTAS in an ill-informed, vexatious or unreasonable manner, which could damage the interests of the very motorists the campaigners claim to represent.”
 
“We welcome this decision and will continue to focus on a firm but fair approach to parking. The principle will always be the same – drivers who park illegally put other road users and pedestrian’s lives at risk and also contribute to increasing congestion in the centre of London.”
To see the decisions on cases 2110534297 and 2110325661 in full, please visit the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service's website. "


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Then this from Transport Xtra @ http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?id=31214
 
Below is the full article.The link above is the lead in only.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
"Campaigners are overstepping the mark, says PATAS appeals panel
Adjudicators reject claim that Westminster CCTV was not certified


Deniz Huseyin

Parking campaigners who use “inappropriate and unprofessional language” when representing motorists at appeals could be banned from attending hearings, a panel of adjudicators has warned.

The three Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) adjudicators — Christopher Rayner, Jane Anderson and Anthony Chan — made their statement after offering guidance on camera enforcement appeals. The panel reviewed two cases involving the City of Westminster and Black Cab firm Pool Motors.

Campaigner Nigel Wise represented the appellant in the first case while Barrie Segal was the representative in the second case. Both argued that the cameras being used had not been approved by the Vehicle Certification Agency and the Secretary of State.

They also said that still images used by Westminster were flawed. But the panel said it was satisfied that the photographic evidence was not defective and the cameras used by the authority were the same as those certified.

Contrary to the claims of Wise and Segal, the panel said that online footage of the contraventions was “clear and sequential” and the still images corroborated the accuracy of the footage.

The panel went on to comment about the conduct of the two representatives. It noted that Wise, a member of the NoToMob campaign group, had used “inappropriate” language about the adjudicator Carl Teper who had initially considered the Pool Motors case. Wise had described Teper’s decision as “self-evidently false and ridiculous” and also said, “it seems to depend on which day of the month Mr Teper decides an appeal as to whether he allows it”.

Both representatives tended to carry out “litigation by ambush”, noted the panel. This involves filing a large bundle of papers as additional alternative evidence on the day of an appeal. Adjudicators that feel that this is simply a “tactical ambush” can refuse to consider the additional evidence, the panel advised.

Wise and Segal had also failed to “follow appropriate judicial behaviour” by making further written submissions after the conclusion of an appeal. “This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the basic principle of open justice and judicial process.”

There were also instances where the representatives withdrew their clients’ grounds for appeal and replaced them with totally different grounds. Both Wise and Segal had sometimes abandoned the motorists’ arguments and appealed instead on technical grounds. “It may be that representatives are acting not to represent individual clients, but to achieve results that suit a wider agenda,” the panel suggested.

The representatives had also made allegations without backing them up with evidence. In the Pool Motors hearing, Nigel Wise accused a witness at Westminster council of giving false evidence and also claimed the authority had exercised “undue commercial pressure to achieve certification of their device”. The panel said: “There was no evidential basis for these accusations nor, as Mr Wise conceded, did he have express instruction to make such serious allegations.”

Leith Penny, Westminster’s strategic director for city management, said: “We have always maintained that our CCTV system is fully compliant with all regulatory requirements, and are pleased that this position has been so categorically endorsed by this judgment.

“Far too much of both PATAS’s and the council’s time has been taken up by self-styled campaigners who seem more concerned with advancing their own agendas rather than the interests of their clients. This decision draws welcome attention to some dubious practices, and the risk of cases being brought before PATAS in an ill-informed, vexatious or unreasonable manner, which could damage the interests of the very motorists the campaigners claim to represent.”

To see the full decisions (case numbers 2110534297 and 2110325661) go to: www.patas.gov.uk"


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

If you require any further information I would appreciate it if you would contact me via email, and not invite me, or other coordinators to partake in discussions on the site. FYI, Nigel has openly declared to us that he will not be changing the way that he conducts appeals at Patas or the TPT.
 
I trust that you will not publish elsewhere any personal remarks I make on emails. Thank you.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player