Jay Daley wrote:
this topsy turvy process they don't have to provide evidence, only an allegation, and that is presumed to be correct and then the accused has to challenge it.
And if the AH asserts to the Tribunal that it's incorrect, with supporting evidence or reasons (and there's nothing in the law that specifies what constitutes an acceptable level of counter fact) then the RH must come back with a balance-of-probabilities level of evidence to support their claim. As for your other suggestion, you're really, really reaching for ways that this could be abused. If someone was both **your** IPAP and a rights-holder (which is incredibly unlikely), then, yes, they absolutely could do so. But the odds are vanishingly tiny. Anyone can come up with a hypothetical situation where they could be stitched up by someone with a grudge, but reality generally doesn't work in a manner that would support their paranoid hypothetical. Yes, I **am** calling you paranoid. Does nobody have anything to say on my suggestion of a court ruling that the process followed by rights-holders is unsafe? -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."