Apr 2017
i can write like this, offer legal advice to someone who misguided their vehicle into a KEEP CLEAR area... you ever seen the A12 junction at romford's north street intersection where the same road indicators are painted? you ever see the traffic where the north street opposite directions try to engage with A12? how they're stagnant on the patch-work of the KEEP CLEAR indication? you know what i was writing about? a violition of the same symbol being "abused" in Goodmayes... with some very minor side-street... law... by human standards is just a knowledge of the: thesaurus... oh i can write this ******* language alright... first i write a poetic joke on day 1... then i revise it... censoring my comparison with a wildebeest stampede comparison being able to run through the space provided, contradicting the "obstruction"... eh... the human concept of law... equivalent to haemorrhoids obstructing a constipation from a rock-hard ****.*
To whomever it may concern:
as stated above with the appropriately ticked box – i.e. that there was no violation of an order to comply with the road sign. I put my case forward on the basis relating to the bias with regard to the positioning of the camera that precipitated in the penalty charge being filed. To detail this bias, I can only state that the evidence is biased due to the angle of the camera that could ever allow the penalty being issued. I state that I have a competence in understanding he basic principle of the road sign KEEP CLEAR – yet from the accusative evidence provided in the photograph is rather an over-estimation of what sort of obstruction I was creating. I understand that the intent to have a KEEP CLEAR sign at this particular point in the road network, is to allow oncoming traffic to be able to turn into the side street (Eastwood Rd) – but as the evidence clearly indicates, there is no obstruction for a vehicle to enter the road from the oncoming traffic, or from behind me. I appreciate that there is obstruction for a vehicle being driven out of Eastwood Rd – but as the photograph also serves the argument that there was traffic on the High Rd. May I add that one photograph does not justify the argument that I made the obstruction for an excessive amount of time – I would grant a justification for the penalty, had I the chance to see a larger body of evidence; such as: a second or third party vehicle being obstructed from not being able to join other vehicles in the commute on either Eastwood Rd or the High Rd. In conclusion, I find the body of evidence to be unsubstantiated with regard to the amount demanding a penalty.
Kind regards
yours, "anonymous".
To whomever it may concern:
as stated above with the appropriately ticked box – i.e. that there was no violation of an order to comply with the road sign. I put my case forward on the basis relating to the bias with regard to the positioning of the camera that precipitated in the penalty charge being filed. To detail this bias, I can only state that the evidence is biased due to the angle of the camera that could ever allow the penalty being issued. I state that I have a competence in understanding he basic principle of the road sign KEEP CLEAR – yet from the accusative evidence provided in the photograph is rather an over-estimation of what sort of obstruction I was creating. I understand that the intent to have a KEEP CLEAR sign at this particular point in the road network, is to allow oncoming traffic to be able to turn into the side street (Eastwood Rd) – but as the evidence clearly indicates, there is no obstruction for a vehicle to enter the road from the oncoming traffic, or from behind me. I appreciate that there is obstruction for a vehicle being driven out of Eastwood Rd – but as the photograph also serves the argument that there was traffic on the High Rd. May I add that one photograph does not justify the argument that I made the obstruction for an excessive amount of time – I would grant a justification for the penalty, had I the chance to see a larger body of evidence; such as: a second or third party vehicle being obstructed from not being able to join other vehicles in the commute on either Eastwood Rd or the High Rd. In conclusion, I find the body of evidence to be unsubstantiated with regard to the amount demanding a penalty.
Kind regards
yours, "anonymous".
