Mr. A.H. Winter.


Email :

COPY EMAIL TO TfL TWO departments

To: Mr. P. Moriarty, Jan O,Mallley, Tony Redmond.

Local Ombudsman

By Email to: cc. cc >> FAO Tony Redmond

Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:21:06

1) Reference your letter 05/A/14993/PBM/JM/NP from Jan O'Malley dated 30th March.


Dear Ms O'Malley

Thank you for your letter of 30th March 2006 above referenced.

Without prejudice, nothing personal intended and in a frame of ceteris paribus., where the arguments are separated from the author”. Any inadvertent use of the term you / your should be understood as one / their since I am confident that every person at work in the local ombudsman building is very nice under certain circumstances.. However..

I affirm you are separately and jointly guilty of misprision towards the taxpayer, and public, especially those weaker members of society. I have already proven without your help, the TfL's criminal conduct, and they stand in front of two formal notices that should they try to enforce a revenue driven PCN under similar circumstances a second time, they will be brought before a court without hesitation, and I shall be seeking custodial sentencing, along with level five penalties.. This is already published on the web since February, and your exchanges, as previously advised, will now join it. What remains is that after some 4-6 weeks of review consideration, you have failed to gather a cogent argument that in contrariety was so beneath common reasoning it has been rebutted almost as soon as received. You earned the award below in bold.

This review with all exchanges to date, is disappointingly more than sufficient to embark on a Master's thesis as to how silent TfL was on their criminal conduct, and how decision making processes with the local ombudsman are so flawed, as to make even panning for gold a worthless activity, since the holes are simply too large to gather anything worthwhile. To attempt to whitewash the decision by Mr. Moriarty, against a clear and distinct disparity of academic disciplines in the area of formal logic and reasoning, was a foolhardy exercise destined to fail, just as I warned in * below.

Just like King Canute, used words to subjugate the sea, you were alerted through Mr. Moriarty that to act similarly you would be attempting to defy the laws of nature (specifically – thought) in a form that was predestined to fail, no matter how many of you stood by the seafront. This review earns itself the award of “egregious excellence in disingenuous sophistry”. Use the large OED (24 vol or CD) if there is the slightest doubt of meaning in this highlighted phrase, there is deliberate contrary equivocation in the first term you will not find in smaller dictionaries, allowing it two characterisations.

Two presuppositions (1. & 2.) ought to be stated prior to dispensing with the flawed correspondence between 'sense and reference' of your 'terms and their purported facts'.

  1. Any institution conducting an inquiry into a fellow member, is highly likely to have an agenda biased towards exonerating that person. Even where the institution is a separate body, like the PCA, it cannot avoid reflecting a deplorable correlation between failed cases and composition of members as to guarantee a result of some 97% failure rate of complaints against police and members alike. So when the review is internal, one should expect precisely what this one delivered. So frequently are reviews biased requiring handicapping to compensate that,

      • One's conduct must show not merely the highest standard, integrity and transparency, but also where it has used transparent compensatory bias to guard against this probable outcome.

      • Given the general tendencies aforementioned, one would have to be a serious expert in logic to avoid what follows. Clearly the best the Ombudsman has proffered was totally inadequate, provably so.

  2. Any review body qualifying their decisions (only too frequently) in terms like this review is 'based on all the evidence available to me' follows the classic formula that invariably accompanies conclusions that ARE fallacious and unsound. This is an argument that says, “my reasoning is sound” and anybody to whom the same material is provided would reach the same conclusion, except it implies withholding, deception , want of integrity and collusion.

      • You are reminded that it was Mr. Moriarty who introduced the Islington case, in his letter of 13th February. ALSO in his letter of 27th Feb he states and you confirm that you have copies of the 'decision letters', where by comparison I have originals of ALL the exchanges, plus much more than you might imagine.

  3. Not only did the above 2nd letter from Mr. Moriarty attempt to prepare the ground for the qualified absence of material, and my warning of Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:15:06, “in the light of a comparison with the decision”, and your review confirms you examined thedecision letters...... available to me”, but since you carefully do not clarify which decision letter of the two was made available, it would have to be assumed that only the first (where the decision was to not review the case for 'Islington') is the one relied on, since the second (subsequently reversing the first, and only correct choice) decided that Islington WAS after all guilty of maladministration, and is the one showing the unavoidable contradiction where in the case of TfL the decision was like the first before it was reversed...........?

  4. You say “I see no inconsistency between the two decisions”, as if white is the same as black. How on earth do you do that? Read on.

      • Only as I have shown, by covering with vagaries which decision document you looked at, to use a sleight of hand in reaching consistency where there is such, namely and to repeat,- the consistency lies between the first (afterwards reversed) decision on Islington, and the one on TfL. This is unworthy in the extreme, and wanting in the integer of integrity. To attempt such a sleight in front of a comparative expert academically in formal logic is as courageous as foolhardy. Any acquaintance with my style, under the review, should have left the review author indubitably aware that they could not possibly serve me with a dish of chop-logic detritus like this, without my returning it properly sanitised for reasoned consumption.

  1. From this section you are left with three alternative conclusions, I shall leave the third for you to ponder.

    1. If one reasoned, as one would have to, from the first letter on Islington to reach the consistent conclusion you did, then it traversed three fallacies of 'biased sample', ' insufficient sample' and consequently 'hasty generalisation'.

    2. If one reasoned from the second, revised conclusive decision, then it was the fallacy of contradiction as predicted, that remains unresolvable as the Canute attempt to defy nature. I said you cannot defeat the three laws of logic, and you paid no attention.

  2. Since you refer to 'letters' plural, I suggest you had all three in front of you, and the conclusion 5.a) from only the first decision letter was willful and culpable in its perversion of justice in respect to truth. In the same way as “Truth the whole truth and nothing but” is best, where truth and nothing but, leaves out the rest”. Economy in truth to reach a predetermined conclusion is as inescapable as forthright lies.

    1. I suggested there was an escape from the contradiction, and it appears you may have considered it to be 5.a) above. It most certainly was not, nor is there any reasoned escape from this law of thought. I also said

      • What is more invidious is the fact that the entire phrase “From a review of the decision letters on that complaint which are available to me.” belies a mens mentis, and or mens rea that the author knows there is disingenuous sophistry (perhaps not in those terms) in the reasoning activity. I can almost affirm with, potential fallacy, that the author was not in epistemological contact with the conscious reasoning process that drew this conclusion, it just came out unthinkingly.

  1. I even tried to help your decision making process ,by balancing the similarities in your favour, deliberately setting aside the greater difference of illegal conduct by more than 6 people over 6 weeks at the TfL with 5 laws breached, just like the criminal conduct of a gang, against the single breach of the case with Islington. Given my help, this review failed to produce, miserably, any argument precisely where needed, that Islington's guilt relied on a greater injustice, than the innocence ascribed to TfL despite the aforementioned balancing that made it easier for you to focus on similarities rather than differences assisting you to achieve the only result that might have an appearance of valid reasoning.

      • All that was required, was that you reconcile “How under the same rule, one could reach two contradictory conclusions in similar cases. The review might have taken my testimony as fact, or Mr. Moriarty's word for it, but if all you did was look at the 'decision letters' then only two letters were required. ONE showing Islington's guilt, the other showing TfL's innocence. That is the contradiction that I had stated three time, as if I had stated it ten ten, and you will not address for want of moral rectitude and courage.

      • The review states “I cannot see any inconsistency “ is as much a want of critical ability as to not seeing any inconsistency between black and white. This is alarming for its want of discernement.. No examination of insufficient, biased, and possible conveniently inadequate evidence was even required to reach a sound conclusion that the two cases under the same rule were not merely inconsistent, but ineluctably contradictory.

  2. The review failed:

    1. To reconcile the contradiction, in its propositional frame placed before Mr. Moriarty where the truth of one entailed the material falsity of the other.

    2. To ascribe accurately the terms I used, but placed in their stead other terms of its own choosing.

    3. To take sufficient care by inaccurately suggesting that I chose to research the law on RTA 1991, as some pastime, willfully overlooking the fact that my representation was denied, with the alternative that I would incur a £100 penalty because payment was deliberately blocked on the web, implying that I should respond to the kind of criminal conduct described in 3. above by paying up. The suggestion is ludicrous, and if thought through, as it should have been, implies that any member of the local ombudsman would be happy to pay the £100 rather than bring criminal conduct in to an open court.

    4. To see the valid reasoning behind the contention that the argument 4.a) if supported by any other member of the local ombudsman team, even the entire team would fail to reconcile the contradiction just as Canute and his followers thought that his commanding the ocean to obey him by stopping, would make any difference if they all stood on the shores to defy the forces of nature with simple words.

    5. To use its resources efficiently and economically in recognising the escape route I suggested ** below in red and putting all this behind us, preferring to balm the self indulgence of illusory thinking that working in positions of authority entails never reaching unsound decisions or judgements.

    6. Bearing in mind Mr. Moriarty was the first to bring Islington in to this exchange, and his and your suggestion that you orly keep limited material, is a reference to retaining material selectively best suited to subsequent reviews being confined to supporting consistence, which is shown as false in this case. Of course you have a policy umbrella to cover that eventuality, but I have all the paperwork, as you may see when eventually placed alongside this case on the Internet.

    7. To make the true comparative judgement required to reach a sound conclusion, preferring to create a comparison from selected material willfully in support of a conclusion that was both non-sequitur, and reached prior to compounding the premisses necessary to fill some aberrant condition of sound reasoning to reaching the goal of this desired conclusion..

    8. To achieve the stated “objective of the Ombudsmen is to secure, where appropriate, satisfactory redress for complainants and better administration for the authorities.”

  3. It seems to me that this kind of logic is a partiality of the more tender sex, but would not pass without the forbearance of extreme and loving indulgence, that is not the purpose of this critique.

  4. From hereon I shall treat the simpler contrary to fact assertions, while digressing momentarily on the argument that to bring in the government, as support of greater credent bulk to that of the title ombudsman, and its own supposed credibility is the common fallacy of 'credent bulk' and 'appeal to authority' which even an inexperienced logician would discern without thinking and reject out of hand.

  5. Just examine one statement, your second paragraph, and try if you can, to reconcile my distress and avoidable time and trouble with the FACT that my representation was denied, and willfully so, for a period of some 6 weeks where I wrote a further five representations, each of increasing revelation on breaches ALL denied by willful silence while knowing the law had been breached. My final representation accompanied by a draft claim for proceedings in court was the result of all the research you think I enjoyed, where I had far more interesting things to do with my time. Your suggestion that during the intervening period, distress,and avoidable time and trouble was somehow annulled by the cancellation of the PCN AS IF it was promptly cancelled is like giving balm to a patient whose hernia operation accidentally gave him a vasectomy changing him from a man to eunuch rather than a women (being given female hormone for the rest of his life) by saying sorry for the distress caused, while his life is ruined was precisely the kind of abuse I have seen on television just recently. Choosing only terms where they hit associations in the mind as touchstones to complexes, is the most common form of fallacious reasoning by selecting out the facts that fail to support the agenda on hand.

  6. It appears that replies from your offices invariably include some reference to what you cannot do under some rule or other. From the three instances of exchanged contacts with me, I have grave doubts that there is any person in your body that is permitted or even able, to make an impartial and unfettered judgement that is balanced and flows from reasoning between sequences of facts, assertions and reliable testimony under an acceptable and consistent concept of what injustice is as defined in the OED rather than mutated forms suited to various purpose.,

      • The reasoning processes shown recently appear governed by an inconsistent and varying determination based for its connectivity on a random selection of premmisses derived from the connecting sequence of those selected terms read or heard, acting as touchstones to complexes and associations, then drawn together under some mood of the day, very badly done.

      • The growth of this incompatible conduct strikes at the very heart of the 'raison d'etre' for your bodies existence. The conclusion remains as predicted that you all so far have failed to reconcile the contradiction you yourselves got into by the above synthetic and unwholesome reasoning processes. It will not disappear by words framed in any other context than sound reasoning, which to date is proven factually to be non-existent.

      • Your comment that I might turn to the adjudicators for redress was already overwhelmed by the fact that I had issued a notice and warning of impending action for the offence of harassment that was only averted by a climbdown with the most deplorable hypocrisy by the team responsible but caught in 'flagrante delicto.', breaching five laws to enforce one. Redress under the judicial system, itself showing the strains of fallacious reasoning, was the preferred choice. Maladministration remains, and surely is by now a well known institutionalised fact since the head of the TfL is, and continues to think his unmannerly conduct appeals to the masses as a vote winner.

  1. Finally, the remaining numerous discrepancies on averments as to their correspondence with facts are too many to detail in this reply. They will be placed, when I have better time to compare them with their letters, on the Internet with all the other material, as was advised months ago (all the TfL material was already there since February) . For example you have shown you failed to carefully check what you assert when stating “you asked for the review” which I certainly did NOT do, it came about by Mr. Moriarty's suggestion, (which on reflection suggests he was just too confident of the outcome, being exactly as described above) and my confirmation that I felt he should. This example reveals the precise depth at which you consider this review was carried out, along with its composed guesswork on what was stated.

The entire review is a synthetic argument of fallacious construction, with very few accurate and truthful assertions.

I suggest you resist the inclination to send more of the same, as scoring home goals is the probable outcome, unless you wish to retract what has gone before, as Mr. Moriarty did when he reversed his first decision on Islington.

E&OI. Spelling and syntax unchecked. - Unfinished and unvarnished you will be advised of any corrections and additions when this letter is published.

Yours most respectfully,


A.H. Winter B.A. Lit., B.A. Phil (Hons), Additional disciplines: Psychology, Law, Shakespeare, Music.

Former MD, Clothing. OEM, IT manager, Application designer, Lecturer, Programmer (Unix,Csh,Basic,C,C+, Author of DBMS III, Menuix)

* Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:57:00. “It will not make any difference how many ombudsman were to review a case where the result is a contradiction like that just shown. There is no comfort to be drawn from the apparent agreement and consequential tyranny of a majority, they will be all wrong if they support one conclusion and not condemn (the argument) of the other. Myself included.”

** Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:57:00.

    1. It will not make any difference how many ombudsman were to review a case where the result is a contradiction like that just shown.

    2. If every ombudsman supports the correctness of decision P(Isl) as being true, the consequence will remain that the disjunct (under the 2nd law of thought, the law of excluded middle, (P v ~P)). P(TfL)'s correctness will be false. And of course vice versa.

    3. There is an escape from the consequences of a contradiction, but I doubt that it will come to you easily.

  1. Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:15:06

    1. For absolute certainty, I did NOT ask you to review the decision for Islington.

    2. I asked, ........... that the review of the decision for TfL be conducted in the light of a comparison with the decision taken on the case with Islington. This means precisely what it says, literally, without interpretation of any implications.

    3. your file and my decision...”........... will not be looked at in isolation, since the consequence, as you know, would deliver a judgement of subsumption that fails to address this decision in its comparative context, (Islington and TfL) where at present you hold that, 'both decisions are correct', is true.”

      'contradictorily so' as in the law of non-contradiction ~(P and ~P) Proposition P CANNOT be both true and not true simultaneously.