« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2024, 12:07:04 pm »
Dear Newham
Ref: PCN
I make the following challenge:
1. The alleged contravention did not occur since the video does not show any advanced warning signage allegedly passed.
2. The alleged incursion is de minimis.
3. I put you to strict proof that the camera used is approved. If you cannot provide this, the evidence is inadmissible.
In light of the above, please cancel the said PCN.
Reg. keeper
Address
« Last Edit: August 08, 2024, 01:33:12 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply.
"Hippocrates"
ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι ε
