To Mr. Tony Redmond
Mr. P. Moriarty, Jan O,Mallley.
Email to: ...............@lgo.org.uk
>> FAO Tony Redmond, copied to the lgo
Apr 2006 10:58:23
Reference your letter 05/A/14993/TR from Tony Redmond.
you for your letter of 12th April 2006 above referenced.
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.
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.
say “Because you appear to be dissatisfied ......” See
again seeming below 2*). I AM dissatisfied, I know
By now I should have thought you might just have perceived
the clear signs of lividity in my tone.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
lack of even a modest coherence of thought chains of inferences is
exampled in 5. above where the statement is plain and simply a
title “Your complaint against Transport for London,” is
wilfully inaccurate, it became a complaint against the LGO, or did
you not see that?
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
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.
is no need whatsoever to respond to this email, even with an
acknowledgment. I know when emails are opened at their
“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.”
Nay, it is. I know not 'seems.'