The Difference Between Common and Civil Law

[frogmanbrabs]

What has any of this got to do with the topic on the thread? Get a room you two.

[SbutC]

To take your silly example, if a source has told me that you've never been to Mexico, why on Earth would your response ever be "show me some evidence" and not "Yes I have"? Unless you hadn't, but doubted my ability to prove the claim. The former response drips with dishonesty and of a person with something hide.

Asking for evidence of points that are not being contended is never rational.

Even *if* my source is mistaken, that is in no way equivalent to telling lies, as you try to misrepresent it. To the best of my knowledge, you are unemployed, *and you have not denied that*, so I will continue to argue that it is true to the best of my knowledge. That you refuse to assert the contrary just gives me further confidence in my source's information, because it is exactly what you would do if you didnt want to be forced into a lie yourself.

Its not for me to provide evidence but you... as you are the one making the allegation.

Have you missed the point or is this a deliberate straw man? I have never asked you to evidence anything. I've just asked for an opposing point of view - something that's always needed before evidence is required either way.

[1.618]

Sbutc, can you please provide the evidence that you have it on 'good authority' as you have stated so this thread can then get back on topic please, your squirming like a snake in an oil slick and it's not worth you continuing to try and avoid the issue by turning it back on G, the onus is on you buddy, either back your claim up or stop derailing this thread

[SbutC]

My source is a forum poster who revealed the information to me in a private message. That they did so in private means they did not want to get dragged into this discussion, so it is not for me to reveal who that person is.

You talk of derailing the thread, but fail to realise that it was *Geronimo* who dived into the discussion with an off topic troll attack.

Geronimo is the one squirming. All he needs to do is tell us "I have a job" and I'll be left with egg on my face. He's wriggled around for 4 pages now without once saying these 4 simple words. He has *no* reason to not do this, as it would only strengthen his position and utterly destroy mine. The only explanation is that he's worried I'll be able to catch him out in a lie.

[Geronimo]

I will start another thread to deal with this...untruther...Please view it and be entertained as how SqrimingbutCreeping continues to try duck his way off the hook

[Etype]

SbutC Wrote

SbutC wrote:There's no logical onus on me for anything. If a point isn't in contention, there's never a need for evidence. You haven't disagreed with the point, just danced a merry dance around the question for 2 and a half pages of posts. You must be tired.

SbutC is obviously a lawyer, and would sell his own grandma. I have that on good authority from the bloke who bought her

I am busy at the moment writing to Sir Hugh Orde (ACPO) to nail him down so i can drive without a Licence or Tax, Insurance or MOT, in this country. Without being pulled at every lamp post by his goons. I also I have to write to the DVLC to rescind the V5c, and also the Driving Licence, and revoke all authority of past signatures.

I'm going to be doing this both for me, and my 72 year old mum so this is going to be interesting I may post results here after giving interested parties a sneak peek, if they are really interested? The lawful paper work is based on an American guy called Jerry F. Kirk but with the religious aspect toned down a lot, and modified for UK use.

Hugh has got 14 days to reply or tacit agreement kicks in.

Kind regards

Freeman Simon

[SbutC]

Good idea, lets get back on topic (or not, as it happens)

Tacit agreement eh?

So for all your arguments over months and months that you refuse to be bound by a contract you didn't agree to, you think Sir Hugh Orde should be bound by a contract he hasn't agreed to?

Tell me, when you were younger, and you received your first ever council tax bill, did you dispute it within 14 days? No? Oh well, looks like you've tacitly agreed that council tax is fine by you! Irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence.

Or are you a hypocrite too?

[Etype]

The Difference here, is Council Tax is a scam! I was already paying rates in with my rent when council tax was introduced, do you think my rates were removed from from my rent?

I was not given a chance to rebut it, so yes it looks like I was in tacit agreement with the council, until I rebutted it at the beginning of the year, they don't seem to have much to say on the subject now.

As for Sir Hugh he has the option of rebutting (or not) my statements which are about me and my rights and don't affect him at all, some how I don't think he will be able (or want) to do that.

Look at it as me refusing to be bound by a contract that I don't want and not me forcing a contract on Sir Hugh, then you might get away with looking as though you have more than one brain cell.

Like your new shoes by the way

Best regards

Freeman Simon