Facing possible driving ban.

Hi was wondering if anyone was able to give swim legal advice, swim realises this forum is of a completely different genre but if swim don't try swim doesn't get.

So swim will outline the situation roughly.

Swim has been having a so called fued with another guy for a while, the back window of swims car got smashed so swim may have retaliated by driving in a spot where he knew the clowns would be looking for him.
They crossed paths both stopping facing each another in cars on a road only wide enough for one car in the countryside.
To get to the point swim and fellow swim may have got out approached the car and done some damage at which point the two clowns in the opposing vehicle fled.

So only one swim had been charged and giving bail, at the intermediate diet plea swim found out that he is being charged with a traffic offence with a minimum ban for a year for supposedly stopping in the middle of a busy two lane road, which is wrong.
Charges were then dropped and swim was advised that they want to charge both swim and the mysterious fellow swim at the same time but gathering evidence to track mysterious swim. Swim will probably receive charges in a couple of months time.

So does anyone know what is happening here ?

Could the two clown witnesses be saying it is on a different road ?
Does it make a difference if it was on a single lane road ?

Thanks for reading, swims loves driving and swim is getting quite concerned about possibly getting banned. Swim is not a happy swim.

Ps one more thing swim got car seized for evidence, swims car had some unsavoury items inside and bho, car was returned to swim with unsavoury items and bho inside, no examination had been carried out. Swim may be quite confused about this.

too many swims for me

Better call Saul. Local representation that know the ins and outs and stakeholders in Swim's neck of the woods would be priceless.

the road traffic act is only an act not enforced by common law (law of the land) for an act to be unforced the party must be willing to accept the act. so thats why when they arrest you under the act they ask you at the end if you understand if you say yes you have accepted the contract and then you have to go to court. same as bail as soon as they grant you bail under an act then you have accepted there terms and conditions. so you might be fucked mate if you accepted bail and accepted you broke the act. next time if its under the road trafic atc or misuse of drugs act 1988 when the police ask you if you understand say no i do not stand under you. ye go nick station then grant you bail say no i do not stand under any faules statement not enforced by commen law. they have to let you go after 24 hours by law. next thing will happen you will get a summons to court, now if its under a act a summons is only an invitation and do not have to go unless they have you under contract (bail) no contract no prosecution.

for you to understand this mate you need to know the difference between lawful and legal. im growing plants that are illegal (under a act) but not unlawful

we all have to live by common law. common law basically is yo cant hurt any one, kill or steal or rip some one off. its where the old expression no harm no foul comes from. Now acts and statues are only put in place to make money (we all believe that they are there to protect and help us) bud sadly its just to take more money off us (court fees for example) if you ever get in trouble under an act say getting caught with a spliff just do not accept any thing the police are saying by law all they have to do is identify you. they will unlawfully arrest you under an act just remember all that they are doing is trying to get you in a contract so you will have to go to court and pay money aka £130 court fees plus your fine for having a splif say £200. Check out free man movement and hopefully you will understand all this then you wont have to live in fear from the police (policy) officers. all the best mate

admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations.