Return to main pages of exposures.

Flaws, semantics, concealment & fallacies – Mayor, GLA, TfL. Page 1of 27

Go to Index (detailed) of sections.

From A. Winter,

Email.

To:

Victoria.Hills@london.gov.uk

Fax 0207 983 4241

mayor@london.gov.uk

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:33:40



“without prejudice”

Draft.

Your refs MGLA120508-590 / 100608-1108.



Index (simple) of sections.

  1. To treat the TfL text. One paragraph disambiguation of a typical template form letter that is crafted to hide culpability.

  2. Treat your text in the two letters. Disambiguation of carefully phrased letters, crafted to deliver dissembling courtesies and thought forms that do not enter reality as deeds, acts or fact forms.

  3. Treat the 'mens rea' of the concealment that had to be known by at least one, and at a greater quantity perhaps eight or more, the worst part of the bad report. This requires reading of the fallacy to ensure clearer insight, and is located after item 4 in sequence.

    1. The disgraceful admission, that was kept secret..

  4. Treat the original fallacy of amphiboly that was the source, and worser part of the unlawful procedure, that was just 'too bad for bad report.'

    1. Exhibits.

Index (detailed) of sections.


Preamble introduction.


I am now picking up some loose ends in those exchanges and preparing to move on after closure and exposure, perhaps in 'authority speak,' attenuated epithetic terminology would put this as 'submitting' to the lofty 'suggestion and consideration rooms.' Consider it a minor study, and consultancy, free!


As there is no personal derogation intended, and this is courteously and respectfully written without reference to you as a person, rather intended to mean the function or body you work for, and your 'acting' for the Greater London Authority (GLA) and others who are now choreographed out of these exchanges. It is, hence merely a piece of work in the vein of examination of errant peccant procedures, 'culpa lata,' the arts of omissions, and semantic palliations. If anything, it is the controlling and directing minds of all this who need to 'consider' these thoughts since they are under increasing public focus, and their behaviour does not escape the minute attention of 'unambiguous contextual inferencing' that is very close to being incontrovertible.


I am satisfied from your two replies that, I am wasting time with any 'direct' and private approach. I am certainly not being taken seriously, and therefore in like switching mood, I shall traverse hereafter with elements of satire and lampoon, the better alternative to entering the NHS with mental health problems. I have a free floating style. Transport for London (TfL) is of course palliating, with your office using their material assumptively without question, from the very source of its own culpability, hardly unbiased would be the obvious comment. This alone shows pal-iation. Consequently the least reliable prepared piece from TfL is the basic and major premiss in your ongoing extenuations, glozing the result, with the Mayor nowhere to be seen in exchanges that formerly were replete with his banners. Of course his commitment, is a sound-bite for public consumption, not to be realised in this case.


Also I am thus also satisfied that little or nothing has or will be done factually, (all being handled in subjunctive thought forms of submission, consideration, and the usual attrition in time and then disposal rooms of abstraction.) Hence there is no need for continuing this criticism privately. It will now continue as an 'open letter' publicly on display from the date you receive this first part followed by some three or four short essays.


Each asseveration will be supported and corroborated if and where needed, unlike the delivery of your and TfL's pieces that are reasoned from within the subjunctive moods relying on hearsay type information; and crafting thereof, that does not correspond with fact. It is really that simple! Just like;

'authority, though it err like others,

Hath yet a kind of medicine in itself

That skins the vice o' th' top.'

Today's medicine is merely a more developed art of sophistry, 'supprressio veri suggestio falsi', anti-logical thoughts embedded in grammatical economies, over-used fallacies easily recognised, even instinctively, but I shall do a little better than that for you with a nice antidote disambiguation treatment.


This privilege is drawn from the EU HR Pro 5 Art 10, and I grant myself the freedom of expression belonging to a personal epistolary style; using unfettered conscience, a thought form unlikely to be found within the corridors of 'authority'. The entire draft is done, all that is required is proof reading polishing. Apologies in advance for typos and spelling errors.

Top


The main parts, in shorts!, will be:


  1. Treat the TfL text, (herewith from the outside-in. TF from the inside -out, the fun part in schadenfreude for a class of onlookers).

  2. Treat your text in the two letters, (beginning here and within a few days. A grammatical analysis, showing how to slalom; in the function of appetition and aversion with directed conscience, from a literal present definite, to the mist of uncertainty to the dark indefinite. This is corroborated to show that the method is not alone a subjunctive and optative mood, but corresponds with reality in not being realised. Just like the language in the higher circles of abstract speech, where abstractions are made into hypostacized substances so utterly and hopelessly unconvincing, since it is all out of context for serious politics. EG: 'Government believes', 'We are a rock of stability – overlooking Northern Rock,' and 'Buckingham Palace said yesterday.' All the abstractions given cognitive, concrete and vocal functions. Such fun!)

  3. Treat the 'mens rea' of the concealment that had to be known by at least one, and at a greater quantity perhaps eight or more, the worst part of the bad report. (I have in mind 'oversights' in CPR 31.6 (b),(i).) (from the outside -in. From above with directions “to do, not think.”)

    1. The disgraceful admission, that was kept secret..

  1. Treat the original fallacy of amphiboly that was the source, and worser part of the unlawful procedure, that was 'too bad for bad report.' ( At my leisure, but fairly soon, grammatical and logical analysis).

    1. Containing a sentence modifying adverb with wilful false prominence, delivering ambiguity over three layered & qualifying adjectives, with two ellipses, to confer a detriment upon the recipient, for the authorities' very own omission for commission, that had to be known, and was subsequently observed by at least five or six more agents serially, then pressed forward wilfully with malice aforethought. (nicely glozed by omissions for the revenue stream missions, exactly as in RTA 1991, Sch 6, and CPR 75. A complete topic that is treated in a forthcoming dissertation. Just for fun, and fun for the un-just. Commitment or committal? There lies the question?) The fallacy is almost textbook, with only a sleight more complexity. The language of 'affirmation' and 'generic' almost informs one of the 'mens mentis' to the precise books being used to construct these template forms that are invariably fallacies. Similar forms are being used el-swear when 'swearing affirmations' in ring fenced bottlenecks for perjury with similar shackling of conscience, BUT the Achilles' heels are exposed! Keep a look out, the next sections will be very revealing.


INTRODUCTION.


    1. The treatment will be of kind and nature in anaesthesia, quarantining, dissection, leaving exposed. You are invited especially to contest, controvert, and prove otherwise, factually, to what is said below, as a series of rebuttable presumptions that are 'accepted as true' if uncontested. Even, if preferred, bare in mind CPR 16,5,5.

    2. It would have been better had my first email been addressed seriously as a matter of importance in principle; since principles grow from what may for some, only appear as trivial, to become full mutations when time unfolds what 'plighted cunning hides' and hence lies at the heart. And then move on to become major growths that require surgery.

    3. If there is doubt as to what time unfolds in 'procedural flaws' that are not stopped immediately on notification of the first representation, then please take a disinterested look at the following to demonstrate what develops from the mendacity of semantic palliation forms and unbridled inequity. You need to bear in mind particularly the word 'concealed' in 1.a) below the term every body on the side of 'authority' ignores as minor oversights, imagining it will pass without scrutiny.

    4. How suicides begin at £5 congestion charge. “Traffic fines led Queen's guard to hang himself.Here......http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article443347.ece (please do not seek that balm to the conscience that his own debts contributed, and TfL's contribution was therefore warranted, without restraint, supporting and providing a system of depredatious bailiff's unleashed with often unlawful warrants --- coming, to rapidly increase in arithmetic progression the penalty, as delivered in prisons, to the unco-operative,) and here......”Council officer threw himself off 100ft bridge after becoming depressed with authority's 'immoral' decisions involving 'huge amounts' of taxpayer's money, an inquest heard.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1062071/Council-officer-threw-100ft-bridge-depressed-authoritys-immoral-decisions.html

    5. That is the first contextual marker and testimony to what people in your corridors achieve and confer on one's fellow man. The phrase segment from Justice Jackson case in the High Court Barnet case, is meaningless in these sound-bite rooms. A brief reminder:

      • ....in their annual report on more than one occasion to comment on procedural irregularities that have come to their attention in appeals. The motoring public deserves nothing less than that the public authorities exercising penal powers understand the importance of their complying with the conditions attached to their powers and are scrupulous about having in place administrative processes that do so. It is imperative that the public can have confidence in the fairness and propriety of the enforcement of parking controls.'

      • Wasted words? Yes these have not been considered at all, the TfL piece and your letters con-firm it.

    6. Further exhibits are in footnote 1*

    7. Before examining the litany of trivialised oversights, presented in an 'Escher,' concave, minimalising mirror, here is the convex overlayed version on:

    8. What an honest parson, person, sorry 'upright justicer' with unhampered integrity, might have said aside; “There was a tree that grew aslant abrook that gave a different perspective, a converse mirror for the enjoyment of those partial to the, largely unanticipated delight in the suffering of another.”

      • TfL. has confirmed to me that, following the illegal issue of the above mentioned PCN, you submitted a series of escalating representations that were ignored while the matter was systematically insisted upon, in the hope of bullying you to submit, while submitting representations. This was accepted by TfL, as gross negligence and deceit, and a review of the case confirmed that TfL. had by way of maladministration delivered injustice. On 20 December 2007 TfL wrote to you acknowledging the malfeasance and also confirming that the PCN had been cancelled.. They offered no compensation for the alarm, vexation, harassment and distress caused by the aforementioned, and we therefore award you with £100 for your perfectly avoidable time and trouble. Multiply this by the number of representations between a representation and seven representations, to arrive at £600, to teach numeracy, If TfL do not pay that by midnight, the compensation will rise tenfold to £6000, and thereafter a real profit making scheme enters on the horizon, increased by the delightful bailiffs with their own system of ghost visits that can increase the amount another tenfold. Those in the line of hire, sorry fire, should prepare suicide letters. Advice can be gained from your local CAB or NHS unit for mental health. Such fun!

Sections.


Top

  1. To treat the TfL text,

    1. The TfL text; as an 'upright justicer' aslant, in full below (EX3). Partial for examination here.

    2. ....Before examining the litany of trivialised oversights, presented in an 'Escher,' concave, minimalising mirror, here is the convex overlayed version on:

    3. .....What an honest parson, person, sorry 'upright justicer' with unhampered integrity, might have said aside; “There was a tree that grew aslant abrook that gave a different perspective, a converse mirror for the enjoyment of those partial to the, largely unanticipated delight in the suffering of another.”

      • TfL. has confirmed to me that, following the illegal issue of the above mentioned PCN, you submitted a series of escalating representations that were ignored while the matter was systematically insisted upon, in the hope of bullying you to submit, while submitting representations. This was accepted by TfL, as gross negligence and deceit, and a review of the case confirmed that TfL. had by way of maladministration delivered injustice. On 20 December 2007 TfL wrote to you acknowledging the malfeasance and also confirming that the PCN had been cancelled.. They offered no compensation for the alarm, vexation, harassment and distress caused by the aforementioned, and we therefore award you with £100 for your perfectly avoidable time and trouble. Multiply this by the number of representations between a representation and seven representations, to arrive at £600, to teach numeracy, If TfL do not pay that by midnight, the compensation will rise tenfold to £6000, and thereafter a real profit making scheme enters on the horizon, increased by the delightful bailiffs with their own system of ghost visits that can increase the amount another tenfold. Those in the line of hire, sorry fire, should prepare suicide letters. Advice can be gained from your local CAB or NHS unit for mental health. Such fun!

The original text in blue.


    1. TfL. has confirmed to me that, following the issuing of the above mentioned PCN, you submitted a representation stating that as a Blue Badge holder you were registered for a 100% discount from the Congestion Charge. This was accepted by TfL. and a review of the case confirmed that TfL. had incorrectly administered the renewal of your Blue Badge discount. On 20 December 2007 TfL wrote to you acknowledging the error and also confirming that the PCN had been cancelled.

    2. I would like to apologise on behalf of TfL for the inconvenience that this error has caused you. The Mayor is committed to making the Congestion Charge fairer to all Londoners and is keen to prevent motorists being penalised for procedural mistakes as occurred in this instance. As part of the Mayor's forthcoming discussions with TfL he will be seeking commitment from them to operate all aspects of the Congestion Charge in an efficient and transparent manner.

    1. It isn't just how nicely the above is presented with all its omissions intact, but what it hides in the underlying thoughts that require disclosure.

    2. Many years ago I wrote: 1. “'Truth the Whole truth and Nothing but..', is best,

2. While 'Truth and Nothing but..', leaves out the rest.

      • Palliating authority follows the path of the second line in the couplet. TfL does so with obvious confidence. This is not good.

      • incorrectly administeredNicely chosen alternative to maladministration?

  1. TfL. has confirmed to me that,

    1. OED the only relevant meaning confirm = 1. trans. To make firm or more firm, to add strength to, to settle, establish firmly.

      • TfL was con-firming what itself had manufactured by synthetic misleading representations. Note: either a representation takes my words literally quoting them as I do below, or it manufactures a false representation by indirect speech synthesising its own representations that are not true literal representation.

      • I Dis-confirm the wholeness and completeness of the truth of this beginning, and ensuing. This is economical economy of truth, a 'mis-representation and misleading representation' in such a way that shows a biased representation, and conceals the 'mens rea' of culpability by the persons authoring it, and is not the literal situation of the representations made. Please look at the literal heading of the last letter sent, that was the main one that brought the increasing deplorable vexation to an end.

      • 16/12/07 Winter - Transport for London (preliminary draft schedule) Ref TL?? ?????? 1 of 1

      • Representation, Complaint, Notice in advance to admit facts, and

      • Please take Notice.

      • 1. A procedural flaw occurred, and when it was realised it was concealed.(Original).

      • (emphasis is required on it was concealed)that nobody wishes to recognise?

      • This was the seventh exchange between myself and Mr. Gentle, writing on letterheads whose footers 'with prominence,' contained “MAYOR OF LONDON.

      • See that it was page 1 of 16 pages, and note the following:

    1. you submitted a representation

      • One should be extremely careful when telling another person, what one BELIEVES, (as in: you submitted a, rather than seven,) probably in 3rd to 5th level hearsay testimony that is inadmissible in a court, where the other person KNOWS it to be false. It's just asking to be controverted, and done so easily. It's impertinent, condescending and presumptive.

        OED 'a' – ArticleA weakening of OE. án, _one',”

      • You are invited to contest that, when 'a' (án, _one') representation is subtracted from SEVEN exchanges 'representations' (totalling 14 matching, plus another 7 of repetitious kind outgoing total = 14 while I was completing the renewal form,) the total should equal ZERO IF and only if their representation is to meet the requirement of literal truth and correspondence with MINE that were more than 'a' (án, _one.')

      • A truthful representation of the facts; concerning the number of emails / letters I sent out, has to match yours, so the subtraction of one from the other equals 0 and not at least 6. Mr. Gentle on behalf of the Mayor, and TfL perhaps should count his letters to me, and see how many there were? Grater Authority? has a problem here not alone with grammar, but numeracy matching 'a', with 6 plus, leaving none left over?

      • If in doubt as to the fact that my letter stated representation; that ought NOT to be needed, since I was outside any legal framework, and inside an illegal one, here is some early text “This is addressed please, to the directing, and discretionary mind for a decision on how to treat this early informal representation.

      • In the exchanges I am told this ”We make every effort to provide excellent customer service.AND: I stated:

        Please take notice.
        1.I do not wish to receive template letters describing the procedures of enforcement to bailiff stages, I am already very aware of.

      • I then receive a further six with increasing vexation, totally ignoring what I said in take notice, and what he said in “excellent customer service.concealing truth and correcting, while each agent observed that truth, but was operating with shackled conscience bound from above, like myrmidons in fealty to combat exigencies of desire.

      • The requirement of literal truth and correspondence is that amusing principle in logic and law, that is the golden rule for interpretations, and hence representations within the meaning of the word ' false representations' in the Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-5, and without checking, the Misrepresentations Act 1967.

      • I am not interested in nuances of what TfL may have meant, they wrote it presumably and hence as “the moving finger writes,they cannot cancel it.

      • Hence TfL's representation suggests falsely that I made, rather than submitted please, a representation, and they quickly jumped forward to cancel it. All so very smart, clean and nicely wrapped in countenance.

      • What happened was I made FIVE telephone calls to different agents, ensuring I; as they stated they do, recorded what was said. Each time the agents saw the same 'procedural error' on the screen, and nothing was done about it until my seventh letter indicating pre-action protocol leading to a High Court claim managed to escalate the matter out of the 'do and don't rationalise' zone into the elevated zone where people can do things rather than obey instructions unquestionably.

      • I hope these initial very few points have gained your attention, and that the representation of 'a' representation is seen as plainly false, and incontrovertible, although I am an academic and openly earnest to see how a group of 'gerund grinders' 'adverbial sentence modifiers' and 'double tense synthesisers' can manipulate falsity into truth, and certainty into its contrary.

      • AND I have only just got to the end of their (TfL's) first sentence. I hope you see the sentence I shall deliver, since this deplorable situation is NOT the first where I have met a group of nice kind people whose group behaviour is akin to a lynching. I remind you of the uppermost thoughts of the two suicides above referenced. One particularly relevant to striving towards excellence. I am not surprised nor should you be, that the Mayor is completely out of the picture, and prefers, to leave all this to his civil, civil servants ensuring they keep him out of mentioning.


-------------------


For the remainder of TfL's representation I simply list their arts of omissions in candour and truth; in a frame of 'suppressio veri & suggestio falsi' that is too common among even the better barristers, below before moving to your own very kind and civil letters. This part was prepared intermittently without reference to the foregoing, and I left it as written without properly embedding in a continuous traversal of thoughts and facts with any specific sequence.


Top


A. Tedious treatment of the paragraph.....(TfL,) done at an earlier time, and with some overlapping themes. (skip to next).


  1. First you need to read the title of my final 16 page letter (EX1.) or 1. a) above in blue, that had to be escalated by way of repeating myself irrationally against a rising tide of template recitals that tried to semantically 'frame' me in a procedure I did not belong to. Next see (EX2.) showing at least 14 exchanges over nearly two months of unconscionable aggravation towards a disabled person. Just look at the mirror of the (TfL's) body's language, disclosing what underlies economic truth that delivers detriments with procedural schadenfreude from up to some eight, estimated, onlookers, with fettered conscience.

    1. You are invited; a- to consider it empathetically and simulate its occurrence to a member of your own family, and b- to contest, controvert, and prove otherwise what I am stating here is untrue, otherwise it is accepted as true, in the spirit of CPR 15,5,5.

    2. Since writing directly to the MAYOR, the footer text is now nowhere to be found? It looks like the bad news finds no person with the moral courage to address my 'issues' directly. All is now an indirect, velleity in the optative mood, despite your comment on directness. I shall bear this out soon.

    3. The last time an 'authority did this to me' in a procedure that took 9 months causing me to lose 3 stone weight in the latter three months, they were shown to breach seventeen statutes for trivia, while trivialising their own offences, recognise this? At their cost of £4000. All that threatened my life, and were it to be repeated, I prefer now to deal with it immediately and speedily to protect myself, using my own court procedures, before I become an unwitting victim of unrivalled incentivised detriments that grows by the omissions of their own author..

Top

  1. Now I reprint below EX3, TfL's letter you clearly accept at face value. I shall examine the economic, economic truth that discloses the underlying aforementioned.

    1. Each part of relevance and importance. These are usually referred to in court, as 'oversights.' hoping nobody will notice.

      • TfL. has confirmed to me that, following the issuing of the above mentioned PCN, you submitted a representation

      • First, while ordinarily one understands abstractions, when they bend to subtractions it becomes more serious to identify properly who is at the heart of darkness in the linguistic constructions. Please note that TfL is a corporate body, individuals aggregated in concept, and as such cannot 'confirm anything' since it has neither guttural / vocal chords, nor the ability to write. It follows that only an individual of that body has 'confirmed.' Hence further, contrary to your subsequent script “ in an efficient and transparent manner.” you prefer the abstract noun to be consistent with transparency since it hides the identity of the person who did the confirming? You may perhaps please note this 'contradictio in adiecto; for future consistency, in saying, performing, and doing. It shows in modern terminology the 'wearing of one's face, to fit the bent of the directing mind's looks.' [Shk-Cym.] One has to wonder if this is done from the impulse of coining, or prepared for such such occasions under rules governing freedom of speech; with forbidden disclosures, as an employee. I am not so constrained. (EU HR Ar-5 Pr-10) Henceforward I refer to TfL meaning a TfL spokes-person.

      • TfL overlooked confirming that I was sent a letter containing a crafted fallacious notice, that was a false representation within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-5, that, my entitlement had expired, delivering to me the blame for their own constructions and failures.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming what that crafting contained.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that due to the first error, I had 5 telephone exchanges with different 'agents,' recorded, showing the fault to be TfL's.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that the error was compounded and mounted, so that despite two agent's unknown prior to the 5 conversations, the exchanges with the 5 agents telephonically failed utterly to reverse or stop the epithet called a 'procedural flaw.'

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that despite my asking that someone with 'free conscience' address the issue, nobody did.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that when I received the PCN it was not ”submitted a representation ” but had risen to SEVEN exchanges (hence seven representations, with 7 replies) reaching a final 16 page letter in sheer exasperation at all this alleged 'keenness to be fair, and prevent,' what should have pre-existed the present Mayor, and discloses an implied admission that previously it was unfair.

        TfL also overlooked confirming I paid unknowing 'just in case' being in the congestion charge area, an anticipated second penalty of £10. I should never, like the first have received or anticipated, and when I advised I shall be seeking it be repaid, was told TfL don't do that, and then reversed what was said by repaying it after seeing a pre-action protocol letter intended for the high court.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming the entire procedure was only stopped when confronted with a serious person, in possession of corroborated sound evidence of malfeasance, prepared to go to court immediately.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that a series of seven letters is in their view 'a representation.' with of course pre-action protocol candour pursuant to being complaint with CPR 1.1-1.4 on all this fairness.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that I don't submit, 'submissions,' to this kind of disgraceful behaviour, I invite the belligerent to a 'caught,' where rational exchanges have a chance.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that I mentioned at some point two clear signage traps at that time.

    1. This was accepted by TfL.

      TfL also overlooked confirming that there were weeks of stress building on me, nobody cared to put the pressure on hold while it was investigated, and the only thing that “did the trick” was virtually a prepared high court claim.

      • TfL also overlooked confirming that their version palliates the entire conduct and fails to disclose the fact that it all had been concealed, and with the mounting pressure tried to hide that, until I told the 'agent' while paying the second instance of £10,(only to prevent it reaching £50) I would be seeking restitution, she couldn't put the phone down fast enough when advised all had been recorded, and she should check their recordings to find their fault themselves.

      • TfL make it all appear that I simply; as Justice Collins at the High Court, said in a hearing I was observing, all you have to do is go to the local court and say “Oi” to get it sorted; omitting that it's different for a citizen to do this than a Justice. TfL cancelled the Pcn and apologised. When it was nothing like that at all. The cancellation was a back down, and the apology was a dissembled courtesy half mouthed and certainly not meant.

      • It was a predatory insensitive, unconscionable procedure that went onwards and upwards in mounting pressure of entrapment, without any person using discretion, that clearly is prevented by template procedures, recitals, and a want of humanity in the face of delivering detriments caused by the authors themselves to an innocent person. I could go on to the whole ethic of the matter, but shall stop short for more to come elsewhere.

    1. a review of the case confirmed that TM. had incorrectly administered the renewal

      • incorrectly administeredare the extenuating terms that have the same meaning as maladministration, I am grateful you admit such at this stage, and disclose the methodology of selecting nuances to avoid culpability. This style is pervasive throughout your replies. Henceforward please translate your 'incorrectly administered' to the usual culpable maladministration. Under the 2nd law of thought, you are not expected to understand, either a thing is itself or not itself, so when administration is incorrect, it is NOT administration, especially when done wilfully or knowingly, and no less that 5 knew it was incorrect, hence mal-administered at least five times over. I trust the numeracy is working properly here..

      • Where is the issue “when it was realised it was concealed.” addressed or did everyone disappear when it came to account-ability?

      • 2 people already had to have seen the screens, before the fallacy letetr ws delivered, and then followed by, what 5 other agents saw, as I questioned them carefully. That's called a procedural error? I was being very polite when I stated that, and not that alone.

        TfL translates “Representation, Complaint, Notice in advance to admit facts, and Please take Notice.” into a representation. Like outlining a half moon crescent, when the full moon is visible?

      • TfL overlooks confirming that the paragraph just being analysed is grossly inconsistent with 'fitting me to their craft' within a contract I didn't belong to under the Misrepresentations Act 1967,

      • TfL overlooks confirming that the procedure breached the ambit of the Offence of Harassment Act 1997, and this is the second time I had conflicts with group coordinated malfeasance.

        TfL and GLA including yourself, overlooks confirming that there is gross injustice in comparisons, where any person for example; innocently crossing into the Congestion Charge Zone, is punished fro a trivial contravention. While breaching offence acts in duty of care, tort, and vexation – unlawfully, and awfully is re-described by trivialising their own offences and that is how the scales are weighed when punishing for trivia. I hope you see the naming, re-labelling, patterns that are totally and incontrovertibly inexcusable.

      • DO please try and recall the famous phrase when administering punishments and investigating them! “Pattern in himself to know, Grace to stand, and virtue go; More nor less to others paying Than by self-offences weighing. Shame to him whose cruel striking Kills for faults of his own liking!Clearly no directing mind in these bodies' appalling language and their manifest bad behaviour even understand what such a few lines mean at all, otherwise discretion would be exercised more humanely and equitably. Please look to't, and carry circumspection in your next phrases of palliation with such as these simple thoughts in mind.

      • I have grave doubts anyone from top down, in these ephemeral official capacities is able to translate their subjunctives into the required literals to realise fact forms other than those in pursuit of revenue, while extenuating faults. SO far, there are few messages indicating the change of face is none more than a change of cards.

      • That's what aforesaid has been referred to as “suppressio veri and suggestio falsi” in economic truths that shows cherry picking selections of only those parts that show TfL in the glamour of the best possible lighting. All consistent with fairness, decency, lawfulness, candour and truth in treatment of citizens who after all could well be the Mayor's own relatives, not that such a matter should make any difference, but does! It's an age old art over two thousand years, and to use it in modern day Britain, belies any notion of truth, and democracy that is in free-fall to malevolent mendacity.

      • Amalgamating truths in this fashion is an obstruction of justice, and shows predatory target driven conduct to be entirely unconscionable. AND it's group behaviour.

    1. There aren't enough 'too bad words and reports' for the baddest report in existence of this example of human integrity and conduct towards one's fellow citizen, IN MY view, of course anyone is invited to contest, controvert or prove otherwise that what has been said here; also; like your good selves, as an amalgam of fully attributed abstract concepts is false or bad in the outline.

    2. To conclude this first paragraph examination and to repeat, what you should know for certainty, that in truth and falsity under the 2nd law of thought, the excluded middle, where either a thing is true or false; that where one comments on another's statements and actions, either one does so directly quoting literally the texts or facts, or one manufactures a false representation, by translating it into any other form that misrepresents the truth. This makes the difference between the literal and even the closest counterfeit representation of the literal, into any level one shade of falsity. It means mathematically that 99 is not 100, nor can it be deemed as such, ever, despite its substantial proximity.

    3. The second part paragraph.

    4. inconvenience that this error has caused

      • How kind of you to follow the same pattern. Please replace inconvenience, with exasperation, distress, vexation, harass-meant, and serving unlawful detriments.

      • And replace error with gross negligence in a full count of all the errors, amounting to criminal conduct, not yet thoroughly exposed. I prefer to call a thing what it is, there lies the difference between our descriptions of facts.

    1. The Mayor is committed to making the Congestion Charge fairer to all Londoners and is keen to prevent motorists being penalised for procedural mistakes as occurred in this instance.”

      • How nice to be informed of a commitment to be fairer, and keenness to prevent. Does this go any further than commitment and keenness? Presumably there will be new rooms for visitations of thought formers to discover the pleasures of entering the commitment and keenness rooms.

      • What was done about my representation, complaint and notice to admit facts? Nothing?

    2. At this stage I think this dissertation can be left and I shall move onwards to the very nice and elegant slalom through primary and secondary tenses to the agonies of uncertainties and indefiniteness in attrition.


------------------


Top



  1. Treat your text in the two letters,

    1. Further to my letter to you of 29 May 2008, I hope you can understand that, given the enormous amount of correspondence the new Mayor has received, officers are working expeditiously to ensure timely replies, which means that short, direct responses are the most appropriate way of dealing with such a large number of cases. It is for this reason too that whilst the Mayor's Office will be made aware of all emails, the Mayor himself is not always able to reply directly to every individual item.

    2. I would like to thank you for your eloquent and detailed letter outlining your views on assorted systematic, procedural and grammatical problems in the congestion charging scheme system, which I am happy to pass to relevant officers at Transport for London (TfL) for consideration. If you wish to follow up with additional specific suggestions for TfL relating to the matters you describe, I will be happy to pass these on too.”

      • Firstyour eloquent.....letterPlease note that I have been told that and similar by several Judges also:

      • My response was, in an early case; “it is not myself, but the sound of truth, that may be unfamiliar to some.”

    1. Your letter is also eloquent, but with respect it is; in my view, also sophistic. Here are the grounds.

    2. You traverse the paths of delivering infinite and indefinite, uncertain and undecided, commitments, to avoid commitments, on behalf of those you work for.

    3. Please reconcile at the end of this section, where I shall return: while stating “short, direct responses are the most appropriateYou actually deliver short indirect responses by the clear use of two tense moods and times, the primary tense to deliver a fact, or conditional, and the secondary tense to deliver an indefinite or uncertainty. Here is the analysis;

      • that is nothing like:

      • Dear Sir,

      • I apologise for the avoidable time and trouble you have been caused. I intend to rectify this maladministration forthwith and offer you compensation in the sum of £???, that I trust you may find satisfactory.

      • I shall investigate what took place and make sure this does not happen to other fellow human beings, and the people responsible will be disciplined” HA! Just amusing myself! Different planet material.....

  • I would like to apologise on behalf of TfL....;”

      • You must see that you do not actually apologise, but you express the wishI would likealone. Hence there is in fact NO apology whatsoever. An apology looks like “Dear Mr. Winter ---”, “I apologise,does it not? I trust we all see the difference here. It is what was referred to many years ago, as a dissembling courtesy. It seems that you deliver the apology, but seeming, like deeming, is NOT being or doing. It is always and inevitably the other side of a logical disjunctive argument under the 2nd law of thought, excluded middle. Would OED = The feeling or expression of a conditional or undecided desire or intention.

      • The argument form looks like, Either you apologise, or (you do not) that is to say; else you seem to do so.” Allow me to take you to our Master in this understanding, where he says, “Your sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant Or seem so, craftily; and that's not good.” MfM Shakespeare.

      • This does not suggest for a moment you are as described. Heaven forfend I would not say, nor mean nor think, such a thing to a nice lady, but the idea is clear. You are suggesting an apology that you do not deliver. It is a mark of subtle intelligence, and more like the latter, namely “seem so, craftily; ” This is in my view, fettered free speech, and more likely to be a mere courtesy than the real thing.

      • The primary tense that delivers the uncertainty, is “I would likeand the secondary tense “to apologisethat uses the form word 'to' and infinitive mark word (supine) that is simply the sense of apologise un-inflected. Hence the absence of a pronoun and inflection in the above “I apologise.” which it is not. The conclusion is that you swing, as I said earlier, slalom, through the markers, avoiding commitment, and are drawn towards the indefinite in commitment.

      • A second example that is clearer in demarcation, shows a primary tense used to deliver definite then again,as above, a swing away to the indefinite. I shall show the instances of this, and then show corroboration that in FACT the ideas in the subjunctive and optaive moods, do not become realised in reality, so this is circular crafting, that leads people to 'commitment rooms,' 'liking to rooms,' 'wishing, passing, and suggesting rooms' all without exits!

      • Thus; you are informing me as to the state of your own wishes, and while this information is provided in a direct form, simply because you are looking my way while saying it, it is hardly something I should be interested in, I am barely interested in the/an apology anyway, not your feelings about it. My interest is concerning whether you or TfL will do anything about it, other than send me messages about the state of your feelings.

  • I am happy to pass

      • In this example, clearly we are in the happy situation of being present tense happy, ( present definite, ) and then again shift immediately into the the infinitive or supine, to pass, which expresses simply the notion of passing ( *my views!) rather than predicating it of being happy, since one cannot pass 'being happy' around to anyone. The level of volition looks very much as low as possible such that I could qualify and obvert “I am happy to passwith “I am equally happy to not passwithout much, if any, detriment to your pay packet. I doubt if your equanimity would suffer one iota in the conversion. You commit your 'authority' to nothing.

  • I would like to thank you”;

      • again, as opposed to “thank you.” Again I am informed only, of the state of your feelings concerning thanking.

  • I am happy to pass to relevant officers at TFL for consideration.”;

      • This is where it gets interesting, because we re able to make a clear determination as to the correspondence between your thought forms, and their fact forms, to establish IF at all, in reality anything was changed in the real world, rather than the thought form rooms you have in the lofty towers of the GLA.

      • We are referring of course to passing the 'outline of my views,' not, complaints, criticisms, notices, cautions to desist ever trying it again, judgements of condemnation, just keep it limited to views?

      • One must assume you suggest this has or was being done, since the tense, while indefinite, using the supine infinitive again, is text taken from your letter to me dated 12th June 2008 and it is now 15th October 2008, FOUR months later. Do you think that four months is sufficient time to effect the realisation from a thought form, into an act form or do you thing the thought forms is rally what the supine suggests it is, namely INDEFINITE, and can be left to infinity?

      • The answer is, I have not received any reaction in the forms of 'considerations' whatsoever, that would suggest there ever was a response to the stimulus of TfL being in receipt of an 'outline view', passed to relevant officers for consideration. Should I by now believe what I would have anticipated that this really translates to, file it, and let it get shredded after a suitable time?

      • If this is not already crystal clear, that all your direct communication are managed by telepathy, then allow me to con-firm this is strengthened by the following:

  • If you wish to follow up with additional specific suggestions for TfL relating to the matters you describe, I will be happy to pass these on too.”

      • You surely would not expect me to even wish at the lowest level of velleities, to follow up with “ additional specific suggestions ” since you just told me, “outlining your views on assorted systematic, procedural and grammatical problems

      • How from an outlining do you manage to continue in the vein of 'additional specific suggestions' when an outline materially implies there are no specifics as yet, just outlines? Is there a logical connection between what you say in one sentence and the next?

      • Now look again at the tense, that delivers tension by vexation in saying and doing nothing. “I will be happy to pass

      • Thus on 12th June 2008, you are forward looking and will be happy. When on the same day you you stated “I am happy to pass toDo you not think it is about time the am, as at 12th June, became past tense by now four months later.

      • I trust you see with perfect clarity that am happy and will be happy now coincide in time, and both demonstrate the second “If you wish to follow upIS without a shadow of doubt, an empty promise of nothing anyway. “The air is promise crammed” recall that famous phrase?

      • Clearly the thought -- ““I will pass these on and follow it up to ensure something is done about it.” isn't within your template set to consider as a matter of integrity, you know it will all remain in those consideration rooms, that are more for consideration (benefits) than consideration (thoughts).

Top

  • Conclusion for this section.

      • What are you saying to me?

      • Dear Mr. Winter,

        • officers are working expeditiously ( Acting or moving with expedition; how nice, such fun! Correspondence...... officers? ) { added, can we be scrupulously honest here please? “officers are working expeditiously,, change to “officers are NOT working,... looks closer to the facts”}

        • whilst the Mayor's Office will be made aware (Note his office is aware, as distinct from the Mayor, an office with cognitive functions now) yet another hypostacised concept, to ensure He, the mighty one doesn't have to be bothered by trivia like delivering iniquities to fellow human beings, at least not now, -- after he has been elected surely? { added, do you ever state a fact? Are you aware of differences? }.

        • As part of the Mayor's forthcoming discussions with TfL Part? A general nod for someone to deal with the problem and leave him out of it all.

        • he will be seeking commitment from them (To seek - To go in search or quest of: Directions please: how do I go to the 'seeking' rooms? And then how do I find the 'commitment ' room where I commit 'views' to paper?)

        • to operate all aspects of the Congestion Charge in an efficient and transparent manner.(efficient and transparent) Efficient in order to maximise revenue, and transparent, presumably like the TfL palliation in section 1, where everything was made as opaque as possible?)

        • Not to say, fair, honest, lawful, with integrity, within the code of conduct, showing respect to the members of the public who happen to be fellow human beings, not only valuable for harvesting, but also with spiritual values as well. What did you say Mr. W? I said NOT TO MENTION, yes the sentence modifying adverb to block the verb in action.

        • Your designated function, 'projects and performance manager' looks to me the wrong job fucntion for this critique. The term 'performance' particularly is in my mind, associated with 'baseline performance indicators' the later terms for targets, to blur natural and legitimate associations. I think this should have gone to the Disciplinary Dept., that probably doesn't exist at the GLA.

    • Perhaps by now, you might understand why some people, choose to blow up buildings to get their views and suggestions across, since bureaucracy ensures their views and messages reach only aggregates of classes of groups of concepts that don't have any substantial existence in reality. Hence the views and suggestion boxes are really nicely covered dustbins.

    • To end this section on a more amusing note, I recall for you, Pride and Prejudice that is apposite to what you say and the way you say it all.

"You judge very properly," said Mr. Bennet, "and it is happy for you
that you possess the talent of flattering with delicacy. May I ask
whether these pleasing attentions proceed from the impulse of the
moment, or are the result of previous study?" (or studied crafted templates from directing minds?)

"They arise chiefly from what is passing at the time, and though I
sometimes amuse myself with suggesting and arranging such little elegant
compliments as may be adapted to ordinary occasions, 
I always wish to give them as unstudied an air as possible." (laughter for some!)


Top



  1. Treat the 'mens rea' of the concealment (profiling the psychology of common purpose, wrapped in countenance of democracy delivered by a directing mind(s). Requires reading of item 4. first, please click here or first word of paragraph to skip 4 and go to item 3.

  2. Treat the original fallacy of amphiboly. ( a carefully crafted, phrase that uses prominence, stress and false emphasis, with a sentence modifying adverb that delivers to others the responsibility for the 'authorities' own maladministration . Smart, cunning or simply malevolent?)

    For these parts, please revisit soon, they will be ready during the forthcoming week. They are worth the wait, since they will show the public what and how to understand the systems of 'authority speak' deliver the dulling of the resolve to seek redress, palliating the natural anger arising from gross injustice, negligence, mendacity, wilful malice aforethought, and the dark side of human nature that sells itself to evil pursuits of power and revenue. A look at the truth, not the seeming counterfeit truth.

    Hence shall we see,

    If power change purpose, what our seemers be..” MfM Shakespeare.

-----------------------

Top

    Here is the fallacy of amphiboly, treated before 3. 'mens rea' above, since on reflection prior reading is required for a fuller understanding of the psychological profile that follows.. The fallacy, whose crafting delivers a detriment to the receiver whatever the cause or problem in the procedural frame-work, better called procedural frame-up. It has to have been carefully crafted to cover as many situations as possible, exceptions included. When the truth, logic, facts and grammatical constructions are checked for correspondence with reality, and are examined and seen to diverge grossly, the piece can only be described as a ring fenced negative assertion that contains malice aforethought. Several similar constructions are found at the T.E.C formulations.

    1. As we have not received a correctly completed application to re-register your Blue Badge discount...... expired... Written 27th November.

    2. For the purpose of this examination, the sentence is truncated as no more is required of it.

    3. What is a fallacy of amphiboly in its simplest and most easily understandable form. A few simple examples with many more available on the web, here.

    4. Did you see it? (The absence of a comma added to it, My wife just corrected me!) Comma was placed after examples

      • Does 'here' refer back to “ a few simple examples” OR

      • Does 'here' refer back to “on the web,”

      • In the event there are two actual locations then two url links 'here” are required to disambiguate the confusion

      • In this event there is one provided, and, you can search for others on the web.

      • Correctly constructed it ought to have been written as “A few simple examples, here, with many more available on the web, here (providing a search engine url like google, http://www.google.co.uk/ ).

Top

    1. The above fallacy is slightly more complex, and derives from several ambiguities, in logic, scope, grammatical punctuation, context, correspondence theory (ie; with fact,) and form.

    2. From a logical point of view there are several formulations that can be derived, and to leave the sentence in its original form, I shall only insert braces to circumscribe the scope in the use of adjunct words, and qualifiers. Because English mostly lacks the kind of inflection found in concord languages like Latin, those inflections that distinguish between nominative and accusative case, are drawn from context, and form more often than not, where the meaning of a term is ambiguous.

    3. The ambiguities found in the above construction are seen to be obvious when the logician brackets the subject, object and qualifiers to show the logical rather than grammatical dependencies.

    4. First the sentence has an ellipsis; (2. Gram. The omission of one or more words in a sentence, which would be needed to complete the grammatical construction or fully to express the sense;) namely the word form. This word can be added or left out with no alteration of meaning, but adding it back, places a noun, where it ought to be, instead of qualifiers and a supine infinitive.

    5. As we have not received a correctly completed application to re-register

      • becomes: “As we have not received a correctly completed application FORM to re-register

      • What becomes clearer in this properly completed sentence, is that the three adjectival qualifiers, “correctly completed applicationare properly apposite to the noun – form, and not left floating around for one to make the assumption of the missing word. The word form, or any variant of like meaning will be instinctively understood.

      • Hence logically the subject, form, and predicate received, (the verb of predication inverted in the sentence form) has three to four constructions two of which are falsities under a certain construction, especially the one presented. The Sentence modifying adverb “not” obverts and obscures the truth since all forms of negation blots, or forbids, the ensuing sentence or word depending on what is being modified. This particular construction is a more complex construction of an almost textbook example from H. Sweet, New English Grammar”, P125, $365 the difference being his example (“I do not think so,”) where the adverb not, modifies an unmeaning form word 'do' and hence distributes negation over the whole sentence. In our example under examination, the adverb modifies a verb, as usual, and that verb predicates the noun “formthat is further qualified by three adjectival adjunct words, giving the general sense of “receivedits fuller meaning.

      • Here are some of the various logical forms;

        • not received ( a correctly completed application FORM )

        • not received a correctly ( completed application FORM )

        • not received a correctly completed ( application ) FORM

        • not received a correctly completed application ( FORM )

        • not received ( a correctly ) completed application FORM

        • not received a correctly ( completed ) application FORM

        • not received a correctly completed ( application ) FORM

        • not received a correctly completed application ( FORM )

        • All the above show shifting of stress and prominence. A subject of serious importance with the T.E.C. formulations that will be available soon. These permutations are just s few, and the mere number is a thought blocking function for many, especially busy people, to disambiguate. But the simple thing is to go for the first qualifier (correct) and ask as below.

        • Now please pay close attention: the logic is incontrovertible and malicious.

      • IF “not received a correctly completed application ( FORM )” IE;

        • not received a ( FORM )”

        • is true, and corresponds with fact. THEN the three qualifiers (application = type of form), completed, and correctly are all indeterminable. There is NO way of ever knowing if the adjuncts “correctly, completed and application form,” are true of false. They simply don't exist, for TfL, to make the determination. The recipient is left to make his own, depending on the way the ambiguity touches his association complexes. If you have any doubt whatsoever in believing that such grammatical constructions can, do and are constructed to manage the ways in which thoughts and their associations are manipulated then a url is at the end of this paragraph that makes it perfectly clear that government departments are in this business for a variety of reasons. The main one being to dumb down anger at the injustice that takes place when they deliver these detriments, to precisely this joining and breaking of associations. So that associations of detriments get re-labelled 'awards,' making the recipient a sure applicant for the next NHS mental Health examination.

        • http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4926571.ece

        • The proposals, drafted by the Home Office and the Department of Health, seek to transform social attitudes towards drinking by breaking [ and making; my addition,] the association between drink and sexual, financial and social success.This makes it perfectly clear the government and its councils with crown prerogative penal powers, are in the business of Neuro Linguistic Programming, (NLP) and nicely called Public Relations (PR). Social, and mental engineering! One major by product of this is they too become subject to the unavoidable avalanche of this, and their grammatical constructions get worse by the day, being thought up probably in 'think tanks' for special purposes. Reading the omnipresent teleprompter informs one they are not thinking always for themselves.

        • That is where many, or some lawyers haven't a clue about logic, truth and falsity in correspondence theory, and how one determines them, with any understanding of epistemology', and / or with truth tables in the calculus of logic. This is the reason most sworn forms show a declaration of belief rather than knowledge, where TEC or council forms are particularly ill bred in their constructions, ring fencing people, whose comprehension in the discipline are in want. Even the best o' flawyers don't construct such sentences within the principles of free of speech and EU conventions consistently. Their constructions are an outright incompatibility between the EU and the UK core principles at heart.

        • That is the first mistake in the underLYING mendacious format used since it is not phrased in the affirmative as integrity and truth demands, where each adjective should or could have its own adverbial qualifier. The moment one sees a sentence or word modifier, negating, that's given prominence in a sentence, beware of a liar. as truth and integrity shows properly in;

        • As we have received an incorrectly completed application FORM to re-register

        • As we have received a correctly incompleted application FORM to re-register

        • As we have received an correctly completed (but not an application type) FORM to re-register

      • This looks like a legal construction from lawyers who fail to understand logic, and prefer to deliver detriments under all circumstances. If as lawyers they do understand what is being delivered then they are participating in outright fraud by ambiguous grammatical constructions. It took exchanges with six agents, a further three or more hidden, and seven escalating letters to get their attention. This testimony is deplorable.

    1. The first question that arises, showing the construction to be devastating in its delivery of mendacity and falsity is this, when I called an agent for TfL and asked;

      • Reference your letter stating: “...As we have not received a correctly completed application to re-register your Blue Badge discount...... expired...Written 27th November.

      • What was wrong with the form?” ….. this was met with silence.

      • To cut a long story short here, I asked again, what was wrong, since you had to have received the form to be in a position to state that it was incorrectly completed, and also WHY didn't you call me so that I could correct it? Silence...... followed by “We didn't receive a form.

      • Next question was “What do you normally do at the renewal stages to ensure motorists are properly informed?We send the forms out 30 days in advance

      • I don't recall receiving one.

      • WE DIDN'T send you one.

      • YES you read correctly.......! “WE (TFL) DIDN'T send you one.

        • It has been said!

        • WHAT we do, is OMIT to send you a form, THEN write to you telling you WE DIDN'T receive a REP.LIE, and proceed to PUN-WISH you for OUR, sorry YOUR offence – sorry 'procedural error', and then make a damage limitation exercise retreat... Sorry re-treat you with semantic detritus....

      • How is one supposed to determine if the form was correct, complete and of the right type, and even that the form exists to be examined? A little oversight is the usual response.

      • This was logged with five different agents, and the representations escalated WITHOUT anyone stopping the procedure IMMEDIATELY. I was being harassed, vexed, asked to pay for an error of TFL's very own construction, and leave them alone, despite my insisting they “DO NOT send me recitals of procedure, “Get ready for the High court.”

      • When you examine, what was being looked at on screen, which I had access to partially in the client account database, WHICH has no access now, under the NEW TRANSPARENCY rules of the Mayor of London, was worse in the 'mens mentis' and 'mens rea' of guilt, gross negligence, malice, and outright illegality. OF course all simply named as a 'procedural error,' How NICE for those who enjoy schadenfreude.

      • It went WITHOUT SAYING OF course, that Transport for London Cancelled the false allegation PCN, £50, and refunded the £10 Congestion Charge that was paid with the caveat, “ I shall be wanting it back in caught, sorry court”

Top

    1. The sentence modifying adverb “not,“ is clearly an adjunct and modifies the inflected verb “received,“ in “not received.“ That verb predicates, in the passive transitive use, being apposite to either the word group or the noun in“( a correctly completed application FORM )ellipsis, Hence the scope (logically) and grammatically is clearly within the ambit of the word group just stated. The negation governs qualifiers that are anti-logical and false, with our without the re-instatement of the ellipsis.

      • I should mention in passing that the antecedents “Asin “As we have not received,” serves the function of an adverb also in the causative modality, it is equivalent and without loss of meaning equal to 'because, or formerly by-cause' The reasoning process presented commences with the conclusion of an effect of a cause, and assists in blocking, with the negation, thinking of the originating cause. This is typical of false prominence and also truncation of an assumptive. For example when a person recently stated “I am not a crook”, the media produced that alone, without the antecedent assumed question, that may well have been “Are you honest?” to which the usual response in 'ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant thesis” is the very statement just made. No further questions a\re asked. This truncation leaves pre and post questions aside that permits the assumption to remain as if reliable testimony.

      • It is given prominence in the sentence at the beginning, that adds to its being a sentence modifier, and also acts, as aforementioned, as a 'thought blocker,' to separate the normal association's in the underlying consciousness of of an affirmative constructions with properly qualified word modifying adverbs. That, even more so confirms the technique used here. It is clear you are required to focus only on the fault, YOUR fault, that is actually, in this case THEIRS.

      • Even if the form were, incorrect, what stops a human being, pausing the process to correct it by a short call, and be seen as well as be, an honest decent human being?

      • The proper decent honest, and legal way of managing this should have been.
        Dear Mr . W, we apologise for an omission in sending you a renewal form, if you wish to continue, please download one immediately, to assist us in correcting the situation, and meanwhile we will extend the exemption period until you have processed the form again. In its stead, TfL sends out a letters that directs the blame at the innocent victim, priming him with semantic primers about the framework he is not in, but framing him to its crafting to 'rope him in' as the saying goes.

      • What happened is the 'mens rea' part, the guilty mind, with gross negligence and malice wilfully.

      • It is distributed over the remaining important part of the sentence being apposite to form, the ellipsis and hence for the purpose of governance where the grammatical form confirms the grammatical analysis, and shows divergence between it, truth, logic, and fact this is a serious piece of malice, distributed to the Mayor's requirements of “seeking commitment from them (TfL) to operate all aspects of the Congestion Charge in an efficient and transparent manner.TWO badly chosen words, that ought to be more including, legal, honest, truthful, fair, equitable, and just.

    1. Now the 'mens rea.'

  1. Treat the 'mens rea' of the concealment. (If you have not read the fallacy of amphiboly first, click here.



Top


Ambiguous reference of pronouns Example


The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some native women, but they weren't developed.

Source: Marilyn vos Savant, The Power of Logical Thinking (St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 76.


In this example, the pronoun "they" is ambiguous between the photographs and the native women, though presumably it was intended to refer to the former.


Last night I caught a prowler in my pyjamas.


What exactly is meant here - was the person in pyjamas when they caught the prowler, or was the prowler wearing the pyjamas? This becomes an issue (and a fallacy) if someone tries to base an argument on it:



Top


Dear M r. Gentle.


I advised that so far I have made 7 calls, and exchanged 7 letters by various means.

I refer to my previous emails, and several points please.


  1. Can you please note that in my exchanges it states I prefer to receive exchanges by email & can you acknowledge the following;

  2. I courteously requested the exchanges be passed higher to a directing mind capable of exercising discretion.

    1. When this is done, and I trust well before the expiry date of the CC payment, May I have please the decision that you accept or reject the informal appeal, and consequently have decided to not exercise discretion as a consequence thereof in my favour.

    2. I also wish to know the authorising person's name and title, who may instruct you, or another to advise me of that decision.

  3. While; as advised I was told the matter would be seriously examined, I trust the recordings as well as the exchanges will have been examined by the person instructing thereafter.

  4. Pursuant to the letter I received, advising the lapse of the CC exemption that stated

    1. As we have not received a correctly completed application to re-register your Blue Badge discount...... expired...” Written 27th November.

    2. Please clarify the following; under the FOI act ONLY IF absolutely necessary, to avoid delay.

      • What was incorrect about it?

      • Why was I not contacted to resolve the issue and correct it?

      • Why the lapse would not have been covered while all was being put right and resolved, bearing in mind the badge expired in 2009, and you had all the records showing that?

      • On what day did you receive the incorrectly completed application?


Yours most respectfully.


A. H. Winter


Exhibits:

Top

------------------ EX1.


16/12/07 Winter - Transport for London (preliminary draft schedule) Ref TL?? ?????? 1 of 1


Representation, Complaint, Notice in advance to admit facts, and

Please take Notice.


  1. A procedural flaw occurred, and when it was realised it was concealed.

    (emphasis is required on when it was realised it was concealed.” WHILE pressure mounted to pay for TfL's 'errors.')

------------------ EX2.


Email's letters by fax and telephone calls.


Search Results 1 - 7 of 7 messages for "Mayor of London" "Transport for London" "Steven Gentle "

Search Results 1 - 25 of 30 messages for customerservices@cclondon.com


The first scan in my email box shows at least 7 exchanges each way, making 14 in total.


------------------ EX3.


Text from Letter 1.


Thank you for your email of 8 May 2008 regarding Transport for London (TfL) and the administration of the Congestion Charge.


TfL. has confirmed to me that, following the issuing of the above mentioned PCN, you submitted a representation stating that as a Blue Badge holder you were registered for a 100% discount from the Congestion Charge. This was accepted by TfL. and a review of the case confirmed that TM. had incorrectly administered the renewal of your Blue Badge discount. On 20 December 2007 TfL wrote to you acknowledging the error and also confirming that the PCN had been cancelled.


I would like to apologise on behalf of TfL for the inconvenience that this error has caused you. The Mayor is committed to making the Congestion Charge fairer to all Londoners and is keen to prevent motorists being penalised for procedural mistakes as occurred in this instance. As part of the Mayor's forthcoming discussions with TfL he will be seeking commitment from them to operate all aspects of the Congestion Charge in an efficient and transparent manner.

Thank you again for writing.

Yours sincerely.

Original


------------------ EX4.


Text from Letter 2.


Thank you for your email of 2 June.


Further to my letter to you of 29 May 2008, I hope you can understand that, given the enormous amount of correspondence the new Mayor has received, officers are working expeditiously to ensure timely replies, which means that short, direct responses are the most appropriate way of dealing with such a large number of cases. It is for this reason too that whilst the Mayor's Office will be made aware of all emails, the Mayor himself is not always able to reply directly to every individual item.


I would like to thank you for your eloquent and detailed letter outlining your views on assorted systematic, procedural and grammatical problems in the congestion charging scheme system, which I am happy to pass to relevant officers at Transport for London (TfL) for consideration. If you wish to follow up with additional specific suggestions for TfL relating to the matters you describe, I will be happy to pass these on too.


Thank you once again for writing.

Yours sincerely

Original.


------------------ EX5