Home
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Justice
Books
Fate
Logic
Home
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Justice
Books
Fate
Logic

ppbd99c0e0.jpg ppba2eb11d.jpg pp05d5db36.jpg

ppaaa2ac7d.jpg    pp3fb7ff31.jpg  pp3cea321c.jpg

       Rape of Proserpina (Bernini, in marble)

         Surrounded by blind justice.

 

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..

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/independent.html

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 I apologise.

 

The issue here is a spin document in refusal that is totally fallacious and often used by public bodies,

 

The background.

 

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for tickets issued at this location were made in the hope of going to NPAS but whenever that occurred the PCN's were withdrawn – confirming  no conviction in their four ‘Heads’ .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 investigate’.

 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 in.

 

 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 and patronising.

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.

•   http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/Logic.html

•   http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/fallacy/fallacies1/onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.html

•   http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Fallacies.html#top

•   http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/independent.html

 

 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 task easier.

‘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.

 

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 evening also.

 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 bodies.”

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 the weak.

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 description irrelevancies.

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 reason fallacy.

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 NOWHERE?

 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 taxpayer.

 

Three other and minor comments also.

 1. He questions how there can have been an injustice when ‘there is free parking nearby’ .

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, ----- radically.

 

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.

Example:

"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.

 

Definition from  http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Begging%20the%20Question

 

Another example form  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

The LGO redfiles.

Another appellant....

 

 

Background to case.

 

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.

 

Exhibit 7

 

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 you appear to be dissatisfied with the conclusions Ms O'Malley has reached in reviewing the decision on your complaint, I have carried out a fresh review......

 

Continued click on Page 4 below.