|
“without
prejudice”
Draft.
Your
refs MGLA120508-590 / 100608-1108.
Index (simple) of sections.
To
treat the TfL text. One
paragraph disambiguation of a typical template form letter that
is crafted to hide culpability.
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.
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.
The
disgraceful admission,
that was kept secret..
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.'
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:
Treat
the TfL text, (herewith
from the outside-in. TF from the inside -out, the fun part in
schadenfreude for a class of onlookers).
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!)
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.”)
The
disgraceful admission, that was kept secret..
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Further
exhibits are in footnote 1*
Before
examining the litany of trivialised oversights, presented in an
'Escher,'
concave, minimalising mirror, here is the convex overlayed
version on:
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
To treat the
TfL text,
The
TfL text;
as an 'upright
justicer'
aslant, in full below (EX3). Partial for
examination here.
....Before
examining the litany of trivialised oversights, presented in an
'Escher,'
concave, minimalising mirror, here is the convex overlayed
version on:
.....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.
“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.”
“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.”
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.
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. ”
“TfL.
has confirmed to
me that,”
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.
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:
“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'
– Article
“A
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Each
part of relevance and importance. These are usually referred to
in court, as 'oversights.' hoping nobody will notice.
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 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 I don't submit, 'submissions,'
to this kind of disgraceful behaviour, I invite the
belligerent to a 'caught,' where rational exchanges have a
chance.
“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.
“a
review of the case confirmed that TM. had incorrectly
administered the renewal”
“incorrectly
administered”
are
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
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.
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.
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.
The
second part paragraph.
“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.
“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?
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
Treat
your
text in
the two letters,
“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.”
First
“your
eloquent.....letter” Please
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.”
Your letter is
also eloquent, but with respect it is; in my view, also
sophistic. Here are the grounds.
You traverse
the paths of delivering infinite and indefinite, uncertain and
undecided, commitments, to avoid commitments, on behalf of
those you work for.
Please
reconcile at the end of this section, where I shall return:
while stating “short,
direct responses are the most appropriate”
You 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.....
You
must see that you do not
actually apologise,
but you express the wish
“I
would
like” alone.
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
like” and
the secondary tense “to
apologise”that
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 pass”
with
“I
am equally happy to not
pass”
without
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”;
“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 to”
Do
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 up”
IS
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
"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
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.
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.
“As
we have not received a correctly completed application to
re-register your Blue Badge discount...... expired...”
Written
27th
November.
For the
purpose of this examination, the sentence is truncated as no
more is required of it.
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.
Did you see
it? (The absence of a comma added to it, My wife just corrected
me!) Comma was placed after examples
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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 application” are
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 “form”
that is further qualified by
three adjectival adjunct words, giving the general sense of
“received”
its fuller meaning.
Here
are some of
the various logical forms;
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.
“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;
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.
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.”
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
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 “As”
in “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.
Now the
'mens rea.'
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:
|
