COPY EMAIL TO TfL TWO
Mr. P. Moriarty, Jan O,Mallley, Tony Redmond.
Email to: ................@lgo.org.uk cc.
...............@lgo.org.uk cc ...............@lgo.org.uk >>
FAO Tony Redmond
Apr 2006 12:21:06
Reference your letter 05/A/14993/PBM/JM/NP from Jan O'Malley
dated 30th March.
you for your letter of 30th March 2006 above referenced.
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..
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.
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.
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
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'.
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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
the light of a comparison with the decision”,
and your review confirms you examined the
“decision 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...........?
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.
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
this section you are left with three alternative conclusions, I
shall leave the third for you to ponder.
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'.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
reconcile the contradiction, in its propositional frame
placed before Mr. Moriarty where the truth of one entailed the
material falsity of the other.
ascribe accurately the terms I used, but placed in their
stead other terms of its own choosing.
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
achieve the stated “objective of the Ombudsmen is to secure,
where appropriate, satisfactory redress for complainants and
better administration for the authorities.”
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.
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.
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.
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.,
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.
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.
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.
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
entire review is a synthetic argument of fallacious construction,
with very few accurate and truthful assertions.
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.
Winter B.A. Lit., B.A. Phil (Hons), Additional disciplines:
Psychology, Law, Shakespeare, Music.
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.
Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:57:00.
will not make any difference how many ombudsman were to review
a case where the result is a contradiction like that just shown.
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
is an escape from the consequences of a contradiction, but
I doubt that it will come to you easily.
28 Feb 2006 12:15:06
absolute certainty, I did NOT ask you to review the decision for
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.
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
so' as in the law of non-contradiction ~(P and ~P) Proposition P
CANNOT be both true and not true simultaneously.