Mr. A.H. Winter.

.......................

Email : medusa338-a@yahoo.co.uk


To: Mr. P. Moriarty

Local Ombudsman

By Email to: ..................@lgo.org.uk

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:24:28

__________________

1) Reference your letter 05/A/14993/PBM provisional view of the complaint.

AND

2) Previous email sent overnight with date & time stamp of Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:44:30

__________________

Dear Mr. Moriarty,


Thank you for your letter 1) above.


As part of your letter; paragraph five, overlaps an area of focus in my email, I am addressing that part mainly before responding to the entire provisional view afterwards. Please resist my attempt to persuade you, but in my view:

  1. You appear to make it a necessary and sufficient condition of investigating a complaint that one must suffer injustice as a result of maladministration. The penultimate paragraph of my email treats the sufficient condition in particular and I feel should be addressed else it lead to fallacy and inconsistency.

  2. With respect, and referring to injustice, I alone am the preponderant measure of the magnitude of the injustice, in relation to my disabilities as a function of particular vulnerabilities and sensitivities, and would be reluctant to explain how this would differ substantially from your view of its apparent insufficiency. Leaving aside a fuller explanation in e) of the consequential health problems I have suffered as a result of unwarranted, illegal and pernicious interference, the remaining elements of:

    1. distress

    2. being put to avoidable time and trouble

    3. repeating myself irrationally five times, after my representation was rejected.

    4. Setting aside £100 of crucial Christmas money as payments attempts were blocked on the website.

    5. with a compounding of disabilities being affected in a way you would not be aware of, but being substantially immobile for a period concomitant with and relating to causes of that deleteriously long period of negligence.

Injustice, being a want of equity, and, in this particular, unfairness, is a function of what a reasonable person may view the breaching of a particular set of custom's boundaries enshrined in the law of the times. Instinct as 'apriori' reasoning as well as the usual 'a posteriori' reasoning is essential to this process.

There is no measure of equity between the distress caused to others by my stopping briefly at red traffic lights, just in front of a filled lane of parked vehicles, on an erroneous impulse of momentary opportunism, and the disproportionate distress caused by a team upwards of seven rational individuals pursuing a course of unlawful conduct breaching six SI offence codes with deliberation , wilful intent and negligence over a period of 6-7 weeks for a gain in revenue coupled with, in my view some element of schadenfreude that is impermissible. This part of upholding the law is at heart of an unruly group plundering on a widely reported scale, with the fallacious imprint of legitimacy, serving as a model for others to copy. It deserves only disapprobation. In any case, it is exceptional want of critical ability and short sightedness to refrain from curbing this tendency as it will eventually deprive society of one of sources that sustains a lower unemployment policy, just like over fishing reduces the resources we all need.


While the function of an ombudsman is to be impartial, viewing such discrepancies with an inured detachment of reason dispassionately requires judgement that goes deeper than the constraints of a financial agenda. It has been well described in studies on the relative and comparative ease with which one can calmly press a button that will destroy many at a distance, and be unable to inflict similar injuries to others at close quarters, particularly those nearest and dearest. The balance of equity being substantially disproportionate here is one that ought to fire some sense of injustice on the well known fact that a substantial percentage of just enforcements, are without merit other than pursuit of revenue, and this case is the close proof of the extent to which an authority will go, to secure that revenue. On these moral points, the Ombudsman may choose to be, as anticipated, detached enough, to ascribe no monetary value to a), b) and c) above. The argument that weighs the use of public funds on a particular infraction, setting aside that the principle here is at the heart of many common abuses would be of specious value since it refrains from disapproval of a common and pervasive malady that needs address..


My only requirement is that in so doing, you simply adjudge in writing, that the TfL did not in any way show maladministration in this conduct.


  1. Referring to the legal aspects of your jurisdiction and discretions , while you have discretion to investigate complaints of injustice that are the result of maladministration, detailed in Item 5 below, I would refer to the 'memorandum of understanding between the Commission for Local Administration in England and the Standards Board for England relating to the Local Government's Act 2000 introduction of a new regime,

    1. Section 3.6 Summary of Jurisdictions clearly sets out the specific areas of basic jurisdictions between your body's function and that of the Standards Board. Thus:

      • Item 3. Can investigate complaints of maladministration

      • Item 4. Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice

      • Item 5. Can investigate the actions of individual members in relation to allegations of injustice caused by maladministration

    2. It appears quite clear to me, that a propositional view of the ten jurisdictions contained therein shows no interdependency or mutual exclusion, between the Items, so much so that you would have the complete discretion to choose which rule to follow based upon a particular agenda that your body might have or not and might disclose or not. Thus you are free to choose Item 3. rather than the interdependency in Item 5.

    3. With respect to the cost of such an exercise, I suggest that the investigative part has been so thoroughly detailed, and the result after repetitious complaint, is tantamount to an admission of each particular, being accurate with respect to any well known methodology for the ascertainment of correspondence between the truth of propositions and their 'de facto' empirical references, such that very little investigation is required on your part, my having so completed it already. All you might be required to do, would be to make a similar call to the TfL as you did to myself, and ascertain if they wished to depose statements to the contrary of the truth of the testimonies I have and would have provided. If they were to do so,then they shall have to reconcile their former intransigence with its complete reversal. I was prepared to question these possibilities under the laws of perjury had I been put to it.

  2. Thus a determination might be speedily and economically achieved, within your financial constraints.

Setting aside a warranted financial remedy I might have sought elsewhere, I only request that you either ascribe the term maladministration or not, to the conduct of the TfL outlined. E&OI.


Yours most respectfully,

A.H.Winter