A promise to complete 'ARGS by COUNCILS LGO SAME', is here
This links to the post.
10,000 parking fines 'are invalid, ARGS by COUNCILS LGO SAME.
I sincerely hope it helps on some of the problems disambiguating PR and spin techniques
used by government all the way down to quasi judicial bodies in manufacturing false
propositions to defeat the innocent in systems designed to relieve them of hard earned
income, falsely. More will come at the link..
Sorry for the length, please don't waste time reading if of no interest or obtuse
in any way.
It's all free. so no harm done if you can't apply some of the techniques, for which
The issue here is a spin document in refusal that is totally fallacious and often
used by public bodies,
1. A dispute over the past eighteen months with 'A borough' on enforcement of an
unlawful ‘loading only’ restriction behind a row of terraced shops. approximately
35m x 35m, with no definitive bay marking in place in accordance with TSRGD, but
merely a dotted white line and no departure from standard has been granted.
2. Over 400+ tickets had been issued – when questioned 'the borough' merely replied,
by stating their four ‘Heads of Department’ concurred that the appellant was wrong
– so go away.
3. A number appeals for tickets issued at this location were made in the hope of
going to NPAS but whenever that occurred the PCN's were withdrawn – confirming no
conviction in their four ‘Heads’ .
a) This effectively BLOCKED any attempt to obtain a ruling against the council on
their methods, and unlawful signage. Rather than get a paintbrush out and correct
the situation, they find it more satisfactory to continue issuing penalties, and
collecting from all those who pay and move on.
4. A letter was sent to the Local Government Ombudsman at the outset, a three page
response from the LGO informed the appellant that the complaint was not one he ‘should
Several comments within the LGO letter were examined: here is an relevant paragraph.
a) ‘More recently you have attempted to seek the views of NPAS. You feel that the
Council is of the view that NPAS will find in your favour and so far it has rescinded
each ticket thus denying you the right to challenge the legality of the issuing of
tickets. For clearly altruistic reasons you are also appealing in respect of other
motorists who have been issued with a PCN at this site. However, I can only consider
the injustice caused to you as an individual. Furthermore, I cannot consider any
matter where a person has used their right to appeal to a statutory appeal body.
NPAS is the body set up by parliament to consider appeals about whether a parking
contravention has occurred. As you have made your appeal I cannot consider this part
of your complaint either despite the fact that due to the Council’s decision to rescind
the PCN you have yet to actually go before a NPAS hearing’
b) It is important here to note that any sentence or group of sentences, not only
delivers grammatical forms that most are familiar with, but the logic forms that
correspond with the thoughts and meanings behind them are delivered also. In many
cases these thoughts are delivered with false emphasis, and certain keywords that
touch below the threshold of anxiety complexes that are more effective than the qualifiers
they are grouped with, when the terms 'may issue proceedings' are read, the focus
is on issue proceedings rather than the term may, which is of course a subjunctive
mood expressing any level of wish or volition, depending upon the context it comes
c) At first sight, and immediately there are three very bad fallacies here.
• A fallacy is an argument who's form alone makes it completely untenable.
• 1. The argument of omniscience that nobody has at all and is untenable, presumptuous
• The other two fallacies committed here are......
• 2. Begging the question in Latin it is called 'petitio principii'
• a."begging or taking for granted of the beginning or of a principle." That is,
the premise (the principle, the beginning) depends on the truth of the very matter
in question. (see the same form of argument by the council on the thread here, '10,000
parking fines are invalid......) http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=855
• 3. Complex question also known as 'circular reasoning' is the same as the fallacy
of leading question, similar to the above.
• a. Fowler states that it is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that
as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself." This is more commonly known
as the fallacy of many questions.
• These and other Fallacies of reasoning are here.
d) I had already disambiguated this last year, but wish to make this a thorough
presentation at several levels of competence, so all readers see exactly the similarity
in the form of arguments, used by councils and LGO to spin and confuse. These are
fallacies that have been known for thousands of years, and to some extent I have
built on them, and improved their focus. Not here however.
e) Many people find such disambiguations heavy going, and very few are specialised
in the detail on how such arguments are managed, and left confused feeling something
is wrong, not knowing how to reverse engineer or clarify the thoughts embedded in
the simple grammar that is cloaked in many qualifiers and then expanded acronyms
providing a mouthful of words as if to clarify by condescension.
f) The first stage in disambiguation is always to take the paragraph and separate
each sentence, and clause, examining the amalgam in its parts first, to make the
• ‘More recently you have attempted to seek the views of NPAS.
• You feelthat the Council is of the view that NPAS will find in your favour and
so far it has rescinded each ticket thus denying you the right to challenge the legality
of the issuing of tickets.
• For clearly altruistic reasons you are also appealing in respect of other motorists
who have been issued with a PCN at this site.
• Simply put, how does anyone dare to advise another person on how that person feels,
unless that person expressly stated the feeling, and this certainly was not the case.
Does that author understand anything about the basis of epistemology, to which they
have suddenly become God? IF one were to describe one’s true feeling in all this
mental tedium, they are more likely to be “I feel vexed and alarmed, to observes
the continual disillusionment in what is described as independent impartial decision
making as a totally false representation except for the few that are necessary to
maintain the SEMBLANCE.” That feeling is best described as anger. NOTHING akin to
THEIR conjectures; about ‘feeling favours in other’s views’, is it?
• The first three ideas are an effrontery to knowledge and belief. The distinction
is vast, and not for this forum. Nobody can KNOW what is in another's mind or felt
by another except by express statement by that person and quoted as such. One presumes
this omniscient person also know how the local publican's dog felt last Saturday
• To arrogate to oneself that one KNOWS such things as 'YOU have attempted to seek'
borders on farce. How does anyone do that, for anything? What stance or posture
does one take up? Is it straight, bending down or, indeed what expression does one
hold on one's face when attempting to seek anything like someone else's views.? It's
ludicrous as is the remainder.
• ' You feel' provides no grounds for such an assertion that only the party 'feeling'
can know, as to why they are appealing. It's patronising, condescending, and exceedingly
unscientific in literary analysis of what another person states, or writes. It is
a failed attempt to interpret writing and lay that interpretation on the writer.
Note either one makes a true representation by quoting what someone says, or else
manufactures a false representation by interpreting what has been said and laying
that interpretation as if it is a fact on the the party. This is Fraudulent use of
language. In law as well as logic, the only interpretations permitted as tenable
are those conforming to the 'golden rule' ie the literal meaning of the indicative
sentences, and that means at least quoting them literally as I have done above. The
introduction at this section is simply a bundle of mental detritus and irrelevant.
Attempting, feeling and altruism has exceedingly little if anything, to do with illegal
parking bay lines, and enforcement. It's a prop to spin an argument, like a student
who pads in an exam question he is unable to answer.
• you are also appealing in respect of other motorists.
• This is; like his opening remark 'for clearly altruistic' equally clearly a criticism
of a person who has other people's interest in mind as well as his own. Justice and
the greater good is clearly NOT a principle the LGO wish to further.
• However, I can only consider the injustice caused to you as an individual.
• However suggest and confirms the above comment, namely the entire passage that
far, was an aside.
• The LGO banner actually states “The Local Government Ombudsmen investigate complaints
of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities and certain other
• There is no notion of injustice ONLY to individuals in the PR advertising as to
the good they purport to do. If there is further down and embedded in small print,
then it is asserted to be misleading, to not state so at the beginning, and allow
any individual to enter the ring fenced game without advising them of the waste of
their time beforehand is misleading and causes avoidable time and trouble dispensing
injustice as a purporter. The terms “investigate complaints of injustice “ are divergent
thinking in legal dafting, sorry drafting, and in logic that is what is called a
'universal'. It covers ALL instances or particulars or individuals in convergent
examples that belong to the type and members of the class of 'complaints of injustice.'
• Furthermore, I cannot consider any matter where a person has used their right to
appeal to a statutory appeal.
• The idea is given more strength here, by furthermore, and then the word cannot
sets this in the form of being a PRETEXT to being ultra vires to consider something
where a person has used their right to appeal. Clever little semantic children here.
Are they? THEY think they are, and they get away with it. The appellant was prevented
from precisely exercising that appeal wasn't he? Remember the council backed down
every time, so no appeal was possible. This renders such an assertion as a false
representation and misleading, within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 sections
1-4. But they are happy to do this all the time. The idea here is that if one makes
an appeal that brings about a back down, the purpose of the appeal being defeated;
namely to obtain a hearing in order to make a determination, renders it exhausted.
The purpose of the appeal was hardly to get the PCN cancelled, but to take that
appeal to the forum for a ruling. The purpose was nullified each time, and denied
access to justice.
• NPAS is the body set up by parliament to consider appeals about whether a parking
contravention has occurred.
• If that is true, then why does Npas consider the validity of procedure, or issue
of charge certificates while an appeal is pending, totally unlawful or indeed any
procedural defect. One has to presume, if that assertion were true, which it is not,
the rest of Npas activities are all ultra vires? IF a person dies at the wheel, as
he parks, then the contravention occurs punish him is a ridiculous conclusion that
derives, so go after that person's estate for the revenue. Is this law of comedy?
A real life case, shows a person pushed by a lorry into the congestion zone, and
charged for the contravention since it had occurred, that person has expended nearly
£20,000 to redress the injustice since it was never the intent to enter the congestion
zone. For these thinkers, casue and effect are not laws of nature, interest is only
on effects that deliver revenue, for interest. Causes are of no interest, only effects
that deliver revenue. Such farces then reach the LGO and they in their apparent,
myopia support it. Yet despite all that myopia, they see into people's feelings with
utter clarity? Amusing little ‘contradictio in adiecto’ n’est pas?
• Also this is what I call irrelevant procedural description that is distractive,
and destructive. One might just as well say, that Magna Carta was set up as an early
charter or bill of rights. It is irrelevant to since the appellant came to the LGO
because of a complaint of maladministration, malfeasance and injustice that is widespread.
AN even greater reason to investigate injustice than were it for a single individual,
so who is being protected here? Consider it. Support the powerful (in councils) against
• As you have made your appeal I cannot consider this part of your complaint either
despite the fact that due to the Council’s decision to rescind the PCN you have yet
to actually go before a NPAS hearing’
• “As you have made your appeal” looks like a conclusion to a sequence of reasoning
does it not? When it comes to council's dealing with appeals, they refuse to consider
them unless they are formal appeals, ie; written on their forms, and responded to
by way of a notice of rejection. The phrase ‘despite the fact‘ shows clearly the
thinker KNOWS what we are talking about, but rules otherwise despite that FACT, he
thinks we won’t even notice his admission, because it is set as an aside They insist
no appeal has been made unless it was made formally, rejecting informal ones, that
have been refused accompanied with a barrage of paperwork to make one ill from procedural
• So here was the second and third fallacy due to the appeal being assumed to have
been made, but NOT IN FACT made, as no formal appeal ever got to NPAS, sorry IMPASSE.
Send you from pillar to post, and then tell you you haven't been from pillar to post,
and it all must have been in YOUR mind. Amusing forms of wilful pure malevolence.
I call it a disgrace to truth and sound reason, and a misprision to the body electorate,
to say you are there to deal with complaints, and then treat those complaints by
rejection, and now, to add insult to injury, when people come back and point out
this is wholly irrational, unsavoury and unsatisfactory what do they do? Tell you
you are being vexatious, when they invited you IN to complain. Yet ANOTHER circular
• Come and complain, but don't complain because that's vexatious.
• If that is the rule, they are fast making their job a waste of time in the first
place, don't bother going there, and that is the bast way to get them dismantled.
5. At this point, let us bring the thought strands together.
a) From the conjecture, about feelings and attempting to seek some views, that indicate;
by the very language itself, the 'attempt to seek failed', (admission) this person
concludes that (despite the fact that due to the Council’s decision to rescind the
PCN you have yet to actually go before a NPAS hearing’) while you have NOT yet had
the appeal, we're going to deem that you have, and tehrefore you can't come to us.
b) Isn't that all simply a farce of circular reasoning that gets the appellant precisely
c) Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up
somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable
belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging
the question, complex question or petitio principii, there is no progress.
d) That is the JOB of the LGO. And they are to be complimented on having done it
well and in wholesale quantities. Paid by us, the taxpayer, to rule against us the
Three other and minor comments also.
1. He questions how there can have been an injustice when ‘there is free parking
a) Irrelevant point....
b) Parking where signs are non existent, or unlawful IS free parking, issuing tickets
for it, IS the unlawful thing, KNOWINGLY.
2. He states that he has not ‘seen sufficient evidence of a failure to comply with
regulations’. The appellant spent two weeks preparing detailed submissions including
numerous photographs, sketches, legal extracts, summaries, case law, – in fact the
full chapter and verse!
a) Sufficiency is such a variable it can be set at any level that is just a fraction
below what is necessary. So sufficiency is a fabulous prop where nobody know what
sufficiency is in its elusive quantity. Pictures are not sufficient, visiting the
site presumably likewise.
3. Of greatest concern is his reference to NPAS whereby he states that he ‘cannot
consider any matter where a person has used their right to appeal to a statutory
appeal’. But the council won’t let the appellant go to NPAS!
a) Already treated. How does one conclude 'an LGO appeal cannot be considered' when
a RIGHT has been used up with the appeal being blocked and the right was not exercised
at all? The Npas appeal has not been made, and one is prevented by so doing? The
LGO is BACKING maladministration, by using the circularity of the 'chicken and egg'
situation, is that not quite clear? They need to be removed or composition altered,
I hope the reader can tie up the similarity in the forms of reasoning here with the
same one from the council on the other thread.
The principle at the heart of the matter in abuse of the body electorate, is partly
bureaucracy, and more importantly the human intervention that should take place in
ensuring scrupulous conduct towards the principles of JUSTICE, and INJUSTICE are
observed. It's extremely rare if ever a letter you receive from these bodies, is
other than a standard template, that is simply personalised. That alone makes it
unlikely the content will address your specifics. Hence this is a fishing net that
catches large and small fish alike, and the weaker ones get sometimes thrown back
(or --- OUT) so traumatised, their mental health suffers as a consequence of being
mucked about by unsound reasoning, and semantic spin. Hence and partly due to, the
mental bill for the NHS has reached something like as I recall £2 Billion.
I apologise for typos, and any errors or infelicities, this is intended to throw
a light on the whole system of spin in bureaucracy managed by highly paid people
who resist actually earning any money for their purpose employed. Great Britain
with such people has become Grate Britain.
For those who are paid to disagree, I suggest the soothing unction of let us say;
“I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.
There is more to come,
How TEC, OFT, PCA (old) Audit commission and others all have the same ring fenced
rules to play domiNOes with.
Begging the Question
A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that
presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out
at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing
the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress,
but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.
"Women have rights," said the Bullfighters Association president. "But women shouldn't
fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man."
The president is saying basically that women shouldn't fight bulls because women
shouldn't fight bulls. This reasoning isn't making an progress toward determining
whether women should fight bulls.
Insofar as the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is "contained" in the premises
from which it is deduced, this containing might seem to be a case of presupposing,
and thus any deductively valid argument might seem to be begging the question. It
is still an open question among logicians as to why some deductively valid arguments
are considered to be begging the question and others are not. Some logicians suggest
that, in informal reasoning with a deductively valid argument, if the conclusion
is psychologically new insofar as the premises are concerned, then the argument isn't
an example of the fallacy. Other logicians suggest that we need to look instead to
surrounding circumstances, not to the psychology of the reasoner, in order to assess
the quality of the argument. For example, we need to look to the reasons that the
reasoner used to accept the premises. Was the premise justified on the basis of accepting
the conclusion? A third group of logicians say that, in deciding whether the fallacy
is committed, we need more. We must determine whether any premise that is key to
deducing the conclusion is adopted rather blindly or instead is a reasonable assumption
made by someone accepting their burden of proof. The premise would here be termed
reasonable if the arguer could defend it independently of accepting the conclusion
that is at issue.
A warden without hat or coat, watched over by 2 superiors and 2 other wardens issued
a PCN to a lady on the street, while the vehicle had DRIVEN AWAY... (VDA) and Warden
section 44 RTA cannot carry out his function unless dressed as such...
Several months of AVOIDABLE time and trouble, with a BACK-side office supporting
this gang of malfeasant wardens. Forced to back down in the face of logic and reason
or else face a court.
12 April 2006
Your complaint against Transport for London
Thank you for your e-mails of 1 April 2006 and for bringing additional points to
my attention. Because youappear to be dissatisfied with the conclusions Ms O'Malley
has reached in reviewing the decision on your complaint, I have carried out a fresh