Mr. A.H. Winter.


Email :

To Mr. Tony Redmond

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

Local Ombudsman

By Email to: cc cc. >> FAO Tony Redmond, copied to the lgo watchdog.

Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:58:23

1) Reference your letter 05/A/14993/TR from Tony Redmond.


Dear Mr. Redmond,

Thank you for your letter of 12th April 2006 above referenced.

You should have heeded, below 1*) the final comment of my last letter, and resisted the inclination to continue feeding me with more sophistry and evidence that indeed your organisation should be radically reformed if not dismantled or entirely replaced.

This reply covers two areas, the falsities of your assertions, and the absence of any ability in replies to use truth in the sense required by any valid correspondence theory. That is to say you rely on seeming below 2*) appearances and take percepts to lack any correspondence with real data or reality.

  1. You say “Because you appear to be dissatisfied ......” See again seeming below 2*). I AM dissatisfied, I know not 'seems.' By now I should have thought you might just have perceived the clear signs of lividity in my tone.

  2. Your paragraph 3, shows unequivocal evasion of any attempt to reconcile the RIGHT???? decision you support concerning TfL with the contradictory decision reached on Islington (found guilty on obvious lesser grounds for injustice). Of course you did not make the judgement of comparison openly. As aforesaid in previous letters, relying only on a judgement of subsumption, that you were warned about.

  3. Again as aforesaid in previous letters, which you have seen by copies sent directly to your desk, you support the view held by both Mr. Moriarty and Ms. O'Malley, that the representation was cancelled at the representation stage which is plainly FALSE, I have repeated that the representation took 5 additional letters over 6 more weeks. But of course such facts, with evidence to rely on, reach your organisation's consciousness as unreliable or possible hallucinatory percepts.

  4. To say “I have carried out a fresh review”, indicates the assertion is to be taken in the lightest possible sense of the term velleity, because to carry out a further review thoroughly and with added purposes looking at the contradictions I have shown, could NOT lead you to a reply in the same vein.

  5. You say “I see nothing to suggest Mr. Moriarty's decision was wrong.” carelessly overlooking the contradiction I have pointed out repeatedly and irrationally, which no one has or could in their wildest imagination address cogently because it flies in the face of a law of thought, which is a system of thinking no respondent at the LGO has acquaintance with.

  6. You say “I shall not enter into any further correspondence about it.” This begs the question WHEN did YOU ever send me a letter at all? Since for YOU to enter into further correspondence there has to be a first instance, and I do not have possession of any letter from you.

  7. The lack of even a modest coherence of thought chains of inferences is exampled in 5. above where the statement is plain and simply a non-sequitur.

  8. The title “Your complaint against Transport for London,” is wilfully inaccurate, it became a complaint against the LGO, or did you not see that?

  9. Finally, you must be aware of as now I am, that the reveals statistics supporting every contention I have made, and the catalogue of properly considered complaints delivering justice to the taxpayer and citizens of this once great country, is staggeringly appalling.

The website concerning our exchanges is already running, and when I have moved it up the search engine results list, you will see the URLand be informed naturally in the course of events. My main site is 8th ranking in 22 million searches, and I would expect this site to reach a zenith position in about 4 weeks. From there you will be able to examine my continued comments.

There is no need whatsoever to respond to this email, even with an acknowledgment. I know when emails are opened at their destinations.


Yours most respectfully,


1*) “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.”

2*) Hamlet. Seems, madam, Nay, it is. I know not 'seems.'