« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2023, 08:53:45 am »
Mr Teper is and always has been against the conflation argument. Mr Mustard had attempted Section 36 arguments re a Kingston case with Mr Houghton. The case(s) were won on signage; but, another adjudicator would have found differently. As we all know.
I note I am a Jr. Member with 2 stars. Good Heavens! 
Congratulations!
If somebody would acknowledge that I am a Senior Citizen and increase the number of stars (10) as per those which I have earned on the other forum, I will entertain them at their next BBQ party free of charge.
More seriously, there is a difference between incompetence and wholly unreasonable conduct. In my view, the NOR meets the latter criterion. But, see what Mike says.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2023, 08:57:42 am by Hippocrates »
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.
If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".
cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"
There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.
To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
