Synopsis Index & comment Case exhibits & extracts
Anticipating, Understanding and Dismantling
the egregiously invidious, deplorable, reprehensible and disingenuous sophistry in Government, Local Councils, and Pseudo agencies purporting to deliver justice but returning precisely the opposite to the voter and taxpayer.
The Local Ombudsman, Their final letter first.
Note: Reading this and the reply without the preceding material, will allow a conclusion; the fallacy of insufficient sample, that leads on to a hasty generalisation, were you to draw your own conclusions inconsistently with this critique. If you suspend judgement from pre-conceptions, rely on this first, while considering the exposure of spin and sophistry then use the rules of logic to dismantle whatever you might argue is true or false or disagree with. The evidence for the reply is provided, (unlike the local ombudsman provides no testimonial evidence or a single rebuttal argument. simply relying on their view, as figures of authority which is a very common fallacy. This, from a position of academic dialectics is deplorable in its own right.In the set of letters on this entire case commencing with TfL. There is substantial added statistics from another site, with a similar declared agenda.
Ad Verecundiam, credent bulk or the fallacy of Appeal to authority.
This fallacy is detailed here, followed by the final letters exchanged, followed by all the letters.
The fourth paragraph of the final letter is all about an argument of appeal to authority, but it’s all his authority, his consideration, his control over his office and his staff etc, it’s not even an argument, it’s chest beating, it’s “Do you know who I am?” It’s ‘nobody tells me how to conduct myself in MY own house’, it’s evictable mental detritus. This establishment agenda is work for a simple functionary, a computer could write the replies, and does, look at the similarities between each reply, including the first two by TfL which show unequivocally the work of two individuals repeating the very same words that could be totally replaced by a machine, and should! it is only worth about £30,000 p.a. to carry out such awful misuse of basic template format responses that are all classified. When a situation does not meet one of the classifications, it is forced into the mould. Look at the number of sentences beginning with “Because you have said” than check if that is remotely what was said. I will take you through the awful maze of rules, and specious arguments that lead directly to a predetermined conclusion characterised as patronising paternal hand holding up the garden path and out the back door. It’s all done so nicely which is all the more irritating.
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1) Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2) Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3) Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject in this case (of formal logic or syllogistic reasoning).
More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This person is clearly not an authority on formal reasoning or logic.
At no point in his or his staff's letters does anyone refer to the term truth, falsity contradiction, contrariety propositions,
or other such terms,there is no language of logic to be found.
Shakespeare's argument CREDENT BULK.
The law against it! But that her tender shame
Will not proclaim against her maiden loss,
How might she tongue me! Yet reason dares her no;
For my authority bears a so credent bulk
That no particular scandal once can touch
But it confounds the breather.(Angelo - Measure for Measure)
Now look at the fourth paragraph of his letter, it stamps his previous conclusions with the authority of his position as the head of the Local Ombudsman.
“This letter completes my consideration of the decision on your complaint and I shall not enter into further correspondence about it. If you do write to my office again this will be read by my staff and acknowledged only, unless it contains material new information or you wish to pursue a fresh complaint about another matter. In either case, my staff will reply to you as appropriate.”
There are only four paragraphs in the short reply, this one conforms to the fallacy of appeal to authority with an additional attitude of overgrown conceit thrown in for good measure. The appeal to authority is not even to another person, but himself, and therefore has this additional flavour of Credent Bulk, where the Duke has invested Angelo with authority during his absence, and Angelo abuses the trust. This self aggrandisement needs to be eliminated.
There is precisely no evidence to rely on, and no attempt to address the pointed questions, all is side-stepping stonewalling evasion. There is only one reply to this type of argument and it is not only ‘he is wrong, to present rebuttal in this format’, but it is fallacious and overblown with self importance, consequently it is disingenuous cant and sophistry delivered with appalling misprision towards the taxpayer and complainant in a democracy. They breach 800 years of Magna Carta (40).
Now look at this brief paragraph on using templates for replies where they could be to anyone. Just like the art of astrology, and fortune telling, where generalities are relied on to touch some associations of each person depending on their own latent complexes.
The Local Ombudsman’s view,
On the credibility of complaints against them.
As ANGELO says -.
Say what you can: my false o'erweighs your true....
Who will believe thee, Isabel? My unsoil'd name, th' austereness of my life, My vouch against you, and my place i' th' state, Will so your accusation overweigh That you shall stifle in your own report, And smell of calumny. I have begun, And now I give my sensual race the rein: Fit thy consent to my sharp appetite; MEASURE FOR MEASURE
Rule 7 Look for arguments of enthymeme, (improbable rhetorical arguments as distinguished from a demonstrative ones), see if there is anything to rely on. From para 3 of Redmond’s letter ‘Having considered everything you have to say, I see nothing to suggest Mr Moriarty's decision was wrong.’ Rhetoric that’s definitely improbable, implausible, and contradictory. To see nothing where a contradiction has been pointed and not addressing it, guarantees biased, selective, exclusion of considerable data, contradicting the terms ‘considered everything’ Sophistry in its basest most reprehensible and abhorrent form, spoken with obvious false conviction to sound irrefutable.